A 






^Wi^H 


Glass 


7 . - 


Book_ 


.W^ 



COPYRIGHT DfiPOSIT 



\ 



\ 



The Book of 

GENESIS 

IN THE Light of 
Modern Knowledge 

BY 

REV. ELWOOD WORCESTER, D. D. 




New York 



McCLURE, PHILLIPS & CO 
M. CM. I. 



CHALDEAN TEMPLE 




Restored liy Ch. Chipiez, Perrot and Chlpiez 
Histoid of Art in Antli^iUty ' 



H 



THF ' BF.APY OF 

CONGRESS, 
Two CopiEB Received 

MAY. 15 1901 

Copyright entry 

CLASS ^XXc No 

COPY B. 



Copyright, 1901, by 
McClure, Phillips & Co, 



€d tl^e ^vivit of 
ilijeljjon ^omerbUle IKultjSott: 

Among the charges brought unjustly, as I 
beheve, against Moses, one is that he forgot 
the name of his Father-in-law, calling him in- 
discriminately, now Jethro, now Reuel, now 
Raguel, and again Hobab. Although I 
hardly dare hope that any tidings of these 
poor pages will reach you in the pure sphere 
you now inhabit, I place your name here in 
benediction of these studies, and in memory 
of the two great occasions of my life when 
your hands rested in blessing on my head. 
While I do not imagine that you would have 
agreed with all the contents of this book, I 
please myself by thinking that you would have 
enjoyed reading it. 



Preface 

1 OFFER this work to the pubHc for what it is 
worth. For a good many years it has been 
our custom in St. Stephen's Church, in the Sun- 
day afternoon services, to dehver a series of lec- 
tures on the Bible or on some other subject 
connected with the Christian rehgion. In this 
way these lectures were prepared and delivered 
in the winter of 1898-99. This circumstance in 
itself defines their scope, and it may be regarded 
as a sufficient excuse for their limitations. In this 
task I had primarily in view a congregation of 
from five hundred to a thousand persons whom I 
desired to instruct and interest. It will be ap- 
parent to men accustomed to address audiences 
that many matters important in themselves must 
of necessity be excluded from such a presenta- 
tion, and that the purely critical problems arising 
would have to be dealt with very lightly. So 
much have I lost by my mode of treatment. But, 
on the other hand, I am certain that the con- 
sciousness of the audience to which the results of 
my studies must be submitted, in other respects 
has been a distinct advantage. This book does 
not attempt to teach scholars, though possibly 
some may find useful material in it. Still less 
does it pretend to be a complete commentary on 
the earher chapters of Genesis. But its contents 

(Wi) 



REFACE 



"have been listened to with serious atention by a 
large number of persons. It may therefore find a 
place with the reading public between technical 
hand-books which are instructive, but which no- 
body reads, and mere popular effusions which are 
read but which do not instruct. Many of the 
opinions advanced in this book may meet with 
opposition; but it cannot be said that they are 
stated recklessly or without due regard to conse- 
quences. On the contrary, so much have I 
been impressed with the unique importance of 
the sacred Narrative, and with the impossibility 
of attaining certainty in such comparisons as it 
suggests, that I have minimized rather than mag- 
nified its resemblances to the Sacred Books of 
the Nations. 

The other limitation imposed upon me I can- 
not speak of so hopefully. Composed piece-meal, 
week by week, for the most part late at night, as 
one of the duties of a busy life, these lectures 
must necessarily lack the coherence of thought 
and execution which should belong to works of 
this order. If the stream deepens as it flows, I do 
not think that this should be regarded as a fault. 
In discussing so many complicated questions as to 
which no unanimity of opinion yet prevails, I do 
not deceive myself with the hope that I have not 
fallen into error more than once. But I trust that 
both spirit and letter will bear testimony to my 
desire to know and to speak the truth. I am 
aware that the critical apparatus I have employed 
is too simple. Scholars, should any do me the 
honor of glancing at these pages, will miss the 
familiar J\ y, etc. Distinctions so refined I de- 
spaired of being able to make plain even to a very 



(viii) 



Preface 

intelligent audience. Neither, to tell the truth, 
have I ever succeeded in convincing myself of 
their necessity. It is quite true that in the so-called 
document of the Jehovist a good many indepen- 
dent narratives occur which have little to do with 
one another, and which stand in no relation to the 
story of the Flood. Instead of referring these, 
however, to different Hebrew writers (J^ J^ etc.), 
it seems to me simpler and often quite as satis- 
factory to suppose with Dillmann that these nar- 
ratives were collected, arranged and rewritten 
by one writer. Naturally these little tales are not 
consistent with one another or with the Flood, 
for they arose entirely independently. Each one, 
for the most part, formed the subject of a sep- 
arate tradition, and only when they were placed 
side by side in a narrative supposed to be con- 
tinuous, would their inconsistencies appear. As 
to their failure to square with all the conse- 
quences of the Flood, even critics appear to find 
it difficult to disabuse their minds of the idea that 
the Flood really happened. I admit that several 
Jehovists, or several strata in the Jehovist docu- 
ment, are often a convenient hypothesis. Still 
there remains the curious similarity of style in 
these strata to be accounted for. 

I have carried these lectures through the story 
of the Tower of Babel. There ends what I may 
call the cosmical portion of Genesis, with all its 
fascinating afBliations with the cosmogonies of 
the great lettered peoples of antiquity. The re- 
mainder of the book is of a dififerent order and 
demands different treatment. 

It remains for me to acknowledge my debts, if 
I cannot pay them. It will be evident to any one 



Preface 



in the least familiar with these subjects that such 
a work as this, to possess any value, cannot be 
original in a strict sense. On the contrary, I have 
felt it a duty to keep constantly before my mind 
the opinions of the great scholars in this field 
and to state my problems on lines laid down by 
good usage. Though I have spared no effort to 
reach the freshest and best sources, I trust that I 
have follovv^ed no writer in a servile spirit, and 
especially that I have appropriated no man's 
thoughts without due acknowledgment. The 
first conception and the general plan of these 
studies were suggested to me by Lenormant. In 
their execution, while I have consulted Lenor- 
mant constantly, the age of his great work has re- 
moved the temptation to adopt too many of his 
brilliant suggestions. On the general criticism 
of the Pentateuch and of Genesis I have used 
Hupfeld, Dillmann, Addis, Holzinger, and es- 
pecially Bacon's masterly treatise. Of the com- 
mentators I owe most to the incomparable Dill- 
mann, though I have received valuable aid from 
Holzinger's " Genesis," Budde's " Urgeschich- 
te," and from various works of Wellhausen. The 
first volume of the long-expected Encyclopaedia 
Biblica appeared after these lectures were com- 
posed and delivered. In revising certain state- 
ments, however, I have taken advantage of a few 
of its luminous and clean-cut articles, even when 
I could not altogether agree with them. (See 
especially ^' Cherubim " and " Ararat.") I can- 
not help expressing my astonishment that the ill- 
timed parsimony of the publishers has clothed this 
great work, which is destined for many years to 
be the authoritative Bible dictionary of the Eng- 



(x) 



Preface 



lish language, in type which seems expressly de- 
signed to rob poor students of what eyesight they 
possess. Its poverty of archaeological illustra- 
tion also places the Encyclopaedia Biblica years 
behind such works as Roscher's '' Lexikon der 
Griechischen und Romischen Mythologie/' the 
Polychrome Bible, and even behind little hand- 
books like Riehm's. 

As regards the Polychrome Bible, I have used 
it when I could, and have deeply regretted that 
its commentary on Genesis is still '' forthcom- 
ing." In all things pertaining to Babylonian 
mythology, and on several concrete problems of 
Genesis, I have found Dr. Jastrow's admirable 
'' Religion of Babylonia and Assyria " helpful 
and suggestive. I gratefully acknowledge my 
indebtedness to this distinguished scholar, not 
only for the benefit I have derived from his pub- 
Hshed works, but for his kindness in supplying 
me with books from time to time, for which other- 
wise I should have had to send across the water. 
As to the translations of the text of Genesis which 
appear in these lectures, I hardly know what to 
say. I have performed this work with the He- 
brew Bible before me. I have also consulted con- 
stantly the excellent English translation of Addis, 
the German versions of Kautsch and Socin, and 
of Zunz. I have also made use of Dillmann's and 
Delitzsch's accurate renderings, and, less fre- 
quently, of Lenormant's translation of the eadier 
chapters. The resulting translation, which I 
think is quite accurate, cannot be assigned to any 
source. For translations from the Babylonian 
cuneiform I have depended chiefly on the works 
of Schrader, Jensen, Jeremias, Jastrow, and 



(xi) 



Preface 

Zimmern. In all matters pertaining to classical 
mythology I have employed, where I could, 
Roscher's superb Lexikon, which now nearly 
reaches the letter P. When Roscher failed me, I 
was obliged to fall back on Creuzer's good old 
'* Symbolik." On matters of archaeology and art 
I have used Perrot and Chipiez's great " Histoire 
de I'Art dans TAntiquite," and sometimes Mas- 
pero. 

The fulness of treatment accorded to the Flood 
tradition I trust will be justified by the impor- 
tance and interest of the subject. The explana- 
tion I have offered of the origin of the Flood 
myth, which really differs radically from Brin- 
ton's, is, so far as I am aware, original, and I feel 
some curiosity as to how it will be received. I 
have no doubt I shall be accused of tearing down 
with one hand what I have built with the other. 
But, after long consideration of the problem of 
the Flood myths of mankind, I am satisfied that 
they are the product of many factors, and that 
both mythical and naturalistic elements helped to 
form them. The Flo€4.. table of Schwarz ap- 
pended to this volume, wh-kh he compiled from 
the works of Lenormant ai^d Andree, is es- 
pecially valuable on account of Schwarz's ethno- 
logical notes. In this connection I must also 
mention the interesting notes on P^iser's frag- 
ment prepared for me by Dr. George .^, Barton, 
of Bryn Mawr. [See Appendix L] 

Lastly, may I express the hope that this work 
may be not unacceptable to sincere lovers of the 
Bible ? Inadequate as its treatment of the great 
theme is, and however numerous the errors into 
which I may have fallen, I am certain that the 

' 0^) 



Preface 



general method I have pursued is correct and 
fruitful. Happily, the time is past when we 
need fear that the Bible will suffer any real harm 
from the most serious investigation or from the 
most searching comparison with other sacred lit- 
eratures, provided such comparisons be made in 
a fair and honorable spirit. The sun in heaven 
has not shone less brightly since we learned that 
it is composed of the same elements that form 
the other celestial bodies. It still remains our 
sun, the source of Hfe to us. And the Bible is 
still our Bible, a book apart, to which the noblest 
tributes have been paid by the profoundest schol- 
ars. Among these, alas ! I cannot for an instant 
place myself. Yet the study of the Bible has been 
one of the chief solaces of my life, and it was with 
the desire and hope of communicating the same 
happiness to others that I undertook this work. 
At this late date of the world's history, unless the 
long-silent voice of Israel should again be raised 
to God, and the inexhaustible genius of that peo- 
ple which alone is strong enough to grapple with 
the Infinite, should deliver itself from worldly 
snares and return to its obvious destiny, it is im- 
probable that any more Sacred Books will be 
written. Hence the unique importance of those 
which we possess. Let those to whom these 
words seem extravagant reflect that no book is 
accounted by us of divine revelation which was 
not written by a Jew, and that from the day when 
the Hebrew element disappeared from the Chris- 
tian Church " inspired " works ceased to be pro- 
duced. Why did the stream of inspiration which 
had maintained itself so long and so gloriously 
under the Old Dispensation dry up so suddenly 

(xiii) 



Pr 



EFACE 



under the New? Because there were no more 
great Jews in the Church, and because Greek 
genius did not know the Hebrew secret of min- 
gUng ice and fire, ardent faith with cool intelU- 
gence, by which man divines the incomprehensi- 
ble. The Greeks produced skeptics, and, under 
Christian influence, they produced believers, but 
we should search their roll of fame in vain for an 
Isaiah, a Jeremiah, a Job, or a Koheleth, in whom 
these two fundamental antitheses of the human 
soul attain a higher synthesis. Neither, to tell 
the truth, was the moral strength of paganism 
able to sustain the crushing burden of a divine 
vocation which Israel had borne for a thousand 
years, and which, having once laid down, Israel 
has never been willing to resume. 

I have tried to express my deep sense of the in- 
spiration of Genesis, not by the wearisome reit- 
eration of meaningless phrases, but by exhibiting 
the true and innate grandeur of the Book. There 
is one misconception, however, against which I 
would especially warn younger readers. It might 
be supposed from the frequent comparisons I 
have made between Genesis and the sacred Htera- 
tures of the Gentiles that such parallels may be 
found for most of the religious conceptions of the 
Old Testament. On the contrary, from the point 
at which these lectures close, such resemblances 
as I have pointed out diminish rapidly, and in the 
period of Israel's classical and perfect develop- 
ment, in the compositions of the great Prophets, 
" the beggarly elements " of this world fade al- 
most entirely. The problem of cosmogony is 
one at which all talented nations of the world 
have worked. In this dark field the speculations 



(xiv) 



Preface 



of one people have been seized on eagerly by 
others. But the higher problem of God and 
humanity was understood by Israel in a unique 
sense. In that domain Israel is not the pupil, 
but the teacher from whom we must still learn. 
As to the sacred Hteratures of the old world, 
which a too narrow sense of inspiration has 
caused us to undervalue, the time is at hand 
when we shall perceive that we do not necessarily 
honor our father in dishonoring our grandfather. 
And yet I confess that the more I have read in 
the great ethnical Scriptures, the more I am 
convinced of the supreme excellence of our own. 
I express here my obligation to my wife, but 
for whose friendly interest and intelligent co- 
operation this work would not have reached 
completion. 

Elwood Worcester. 



The Rectory of St. Stephen's Church, 
Philadelphia, November, 1900. 



(XV) 



List of Chapters 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I. A General Introduction . . . . i 

II. Critical Survey fg 

III. Composition of Genesis and Character of 

Its Narratives 36 

IV. What Is the Book of Genesis? ... 55 
V. The Eternal Problem 70 

VI. The Creation Story 88 

VII. The Chaos Monster in the Old Testament 127 
VIII. Adam and Eve . . . . . . .148 

IX. The Garden and the Fall .... 164 

X. Eden in the Mythology of the Nations . 184 
XI. Eden in the Mythology of the Nations — 

Continued . . . . . . .210 

XII. The Epic of Izdubar and the Legend of 

Adapa , . 234 

XIII. Cain and Abel 257 

XTV. The Antediluvian Patriarchs . . . 278 



(xvii) 



List of Chapters 



CHAPTER PAGE 

XV. The Sons of God and the Daughters of 

Men and the End of the Old World . 303 
XVI. The Two Stories of the Deluge. . . 323 
XVII. The End of the Deluge. The Flood Tradi- 
tion in Antiquity 343 

XVIII. The Flood Traditions of Babylon . . 374 

XIX. The Flood Traditions of Primitive Peoples 412 

XX. Origin of Flood Myths of Mankind . . 438 
XXI. The Physical Causes of Our Deluge. The 

Discovery of the Vine .... 466 

XXII. The Tradition of the Tower of Babel . 491 

Appendix I. Notes on Peiser's Flood Map . . 523 
Appendix II. Table of Traditions Relating to 

the Flood 527 

Appendix III. Enoch 553 



(xviii] 



Illustrations 



PAGE 

The Battle of Tiamat and Marduk . . . 114 

The Serpent and the Tree 198 

Genii and the Tree 202 

Genii and the Tree 203 

Izdubar and Eabani 235 

Scorpion-Men 240 

Little Noah's Ark Found in Vetulonia , . 361 

Sit-Napistim in His Ark 389 

Sit-Napistim in His Ark 391 

Basil 514 

BiRS-NiMRUD 515 



;xix) 



charts 

Chaldean Temple Frontispiece. 



xx) 



OPPOSITE 
PAGE 



The Babylonian Conception of the World . . log 

The Old Hebrew Conception of the World . . iii 

Map of the City of Babylon 491 

The Babylonian Flood Map 523 



The Book of 

GENESIS 

IN THE Light of 
Modern Knowledge 

Chapter One: 
A General Introduction 

1 BEGIN this discussion with a great deal of 
pleasure and with some trepidation. The 
book that we are to study is the oldest and, 
in some respects, the grandest and the most 
difficult book of the Old Testament. Outside of 
the four Gospels, probably no book has influ- 
enced the thought of the world so much as the 
Book of Genesis. For ages it has been regarded 
as the sacred repository, the infallible witness of 
those truths which man most desires to know. 
The reason of its vast importance is this. It deals 
in a masterly way with the beginnings of things, 
and the beginnings of things are always the most 
difficult and the most interesting. The world 
of effects, of nature, of orderly progression, has 
its charm and its importance, but the world 
of causes is the peculiar domain of God and 
of those great intelligences which endeavor to 
penetrate the secrets of God. That is the lesson 

0) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

which we of the latter half of this century have 
thoroughly learned. Auguste Comte once said 
in an inspired moment, " You can know little of 
any idea until you know the history of that idea/' 
and Darwin showed us how to trace the history 
of our ideas back to their origins. The best 
thought of the latter half of this century has been 
little more than a study of origins. That is why 
this book, the first rational attempt at a study of 
origins, has so great a fascination for us to-day. 
The Book of Genesis has been studied during the 
past fifty years as it was never studied before, and 
its real character is understood now as never be- 
fore. It is true that with the rise of modern 
knowledge Genesis has been attacked on many 
sides. It is also true that for us its ideas in the 
field of positive science have not the absolute 
value that they once had. And yet the old book 
has not lost its importance. Like a huge cube of 
granite cut by some giant of old, it has resisted all 
the attacks of time. It has been " overturned " 
again and again, but it makes little difference 
which face is uppermost. It is still grand, solid, 
imposing. If this great block has been set for 
centuries in the path of progress to discourage 
investigation and to ruin science, that is not the 
fault of the block itself, but of the pygmies who 
placed it there. The Book of Genesis was not 
written to impede progress and to ruin science. 
On the contrary, its grand opening verse, '' In 
the beginning God created the heavens and the 
earth," as Renan says, ''swept away at one breath 
the whole brood of chimeras and mythological 
fancies which had darkened knowledge from the 
beginning." Who can estimate the indebtedness 

(2) 



Method of Treatment 



of subsequent science to the opening verses of 
Genesis, which laid the eternal foundation of all 
sane thought — one God, one solitary, unique 
cause of all that happens. Heathen wisdom with 
all its subtlety failed to apprehend that truth. 

In my opinion, a comprehensive and really 
fruitful study of the Book of Genesis ought to in- 
clude three distinct parts. First, we ought to de- 
termine exactly what this book is and what it 
actually wishes to teach. Second, we should at- 
tempt to ascertain the sources from which its 
ideas are derived, and its relation to other works 
of the same sort. Third, we cannot altogether re- 
fuse to ask, how do those ideas square with what 
we know of the universe to-day? We should 
remember, however, that the real problem of 
to-day is. not, are the views of Genesis scientifi- 
cally true, but, how did they originate? Let me 
speak of these three points a little more fully. 

It is of the first importance in studying any 
book, and especially a scientific book, that we 
should know when and by whom it was written. 
The writings of Aristotle were marvels of wis- 
dom in their day, but if they were to be put forth 
now for the first time, without any preface ex- 
plaining when and by whom they were written, 
they would be regarded as the work of an ex- 
ceedingly clever lunatic. We are accustomed to 
regard the Book of Genesis as a single composi- 
tion, Avritten at one time, by one man; but we 
shall see before long that the Book of Genesis is 
not a single composition, written at one time, by 
one man, but a collection of compositions, writ- 
ten at different times by different men, and then 
brought together and woven into one more or 



(3) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

less continuous narrative. This accounts for the 
strange repetitions, inconsistencies, and contra- 
dictions of the book, such as the two accounts of 
the creation and of the flood, and the f wo seizures 
of Sarah, over which men Hke Ingersoll make 
merry, and which would be inexcusable if the 
whole book were the work of a single mind. To 
make this important matter plainer, let me cite an 
almost parallel case in Christendom.* In the lat- 
ter half of the second century a celebrated Chris- 
tian writer named Tatian, then living in Rome, 
made up his mind to reduce our four Gospels to 
one Gospel. It seemed to him that one con- 
tinuous narrative of the Saviour's life, containing 
all the events preserved by the four Evangelists, 
would be more satisfactory than four accounts, 
the very number of which might give rise to some 
suspicion. He called his work the " Diates- 
saron," i.e., '' Harmony of the Four." This book 
became very popular in the church until, on ac- 
count of the heresies of which Tatian was sus- 
pected, its use was prohibited, and for centuries 
the book was lost. Within the past twenty-five 
years large portions of this work have been re- 
covered, and they are in the hands of scholars. 
Now, in this " Diatessaron " of Tatian, in which 
he tried to weave the strands of the four Gospels 
into one continuous story, we find the same con- 
tradictions, the same repetitions and inconsisten- 
cies that we find in the Book of Genesis. Only, 
happily for us, the four Gospels are still extant, 
so that we can say with certainty how those 
contradictions and discrepancies arose. This 

* T borrow this illustration from Bacon's " Genesis of Genesis," 
pp. 5 and 6. 



Three Narratives in One 



story, we say, is the result of Tatian's attempt 
to piece together such a chapter of St. Matthew 
with such a chapter of St. John. That repeti- 
tion occurred because the story had already been 
told by St. Mark; but Tatian, for certain rea- 
sons, wished to incorporate into his book the 
corresponding chapter of St. Luke. So, in 
reading his book we are not puzzled at all. We 
know what it is— an attempt to combine four 
narratives in one narrative. In the Book of 
Genesis a similar attempt was made by some un- 
known writer, who lived long before the time of 
Christ, to reduce at least three narratives to one 
narrative. He had all three before him, and he 
was able to choose what seemed to him the finest 
passages and to weave them together into one 
book. In doing this he was obliged, of course, 
to take a great many liberties to make them fit 
together, and even then he was not able to pre- 
vent the seams and stitches from being seen, and 
a good many contradictory statements from slip- 
ping in. Unfortunately, the three original 
sources have completely perished, and yet they 
were so different from each other in style, in the 
range of their ideas, in their names for the Deity, 
etc., that scholars have little difficulty in separat- 
ing the book into its original parts. The new 
polychrome edition of Genesis will have these 
three principal narratives, or documents, as they 
are called, printed in three colors, so that the 
reader can tell at a glance which one he is reading. 
I might compare the book as it stands in our Bible 
to a cord of three strands, red, white and blue. 
As we look at the cord the effect is confusing, 
here a little red, there some white, and there some 



(5) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

blue. But when we get hold of the ends of those 
threads and unravel them, we find that they are 
continuous, and if we persevere we have at last a 
red thread, a white thread, and a blue thread, 
each slighter and less imposing than the whole 
cord, but independent. It is criticism that enables 
us to unravel the Book of Genesis, and when our 
task is done, we find that these three documents 
run not only through the Book of Genesis, but 
through the whole Pentateuch and the Book of 
Joshua as well. I shall not attempt to prove this 
now. I do not even ask you to believe it because I 
say it is true. I ask you to believe only what you 
see with your own eyes and what your own judg- 
ment pronounces true. I touch on these mat- 
ters here merely to chow you that Genesis is 
by no means so simple a book as most persons 
suppose, and that to know what kind of book 
it is, one must study it with the utmost care. 
It is just because so few persons have had the 
patience to study this work as it ought to be 
studied that many of the criticisms passed upon 
it are more childish than the passages they 
criticise. If the Book of Genesis pretended to be 
a literal history of the world, from the day of 
creation down to the descent into Egypt, like 
histories written to-day in the age of printing 
and newspapers, then there might be some rea- 
son in asking who was Cain's wife, or why Cain 
was afraid that everybody would kill him when 
there was no one in the world but his father and 
mother ; or how it happened that after Isaac was 
born of parents so old that his birth was a sort of 
miracle, Abraham became the father of several 
other sons in the ordinary course of nature. But 



Futility of Ignorant Criticism 

as soon as we get a true insight into the char- 
acter of the composition, we shall see that these 
inconsistencies are mere trifles, and only to be 
expected. I shall notice the discrepancies when 
they are forced on our attention, but I shall not 
go out of my way to seek them. Hundreds of 
sceptics have had their little scoff at the Book of 
Genesis on account of matters of this kind. But 
scoffs do not advance science nor make people 
religious. Any strolling vagabond, as Strauss 
says, can stuff a turnip into the town pump. 
Neither, on the other hand, shall I try to prove 
that every statement of Genesis, nor even its gen- 
eral theory of the origin of the world, is in com- 
plete agreement with the most recent results of 
modern science. I gladly leave that task to those 
who are sufflciently ignorant both of science and 
of Genesis. My own firm conviction is that the 
Book is so great in itself that it does not need 
the assistance of maladroit apologists. 

The second part of a comprehensive study of 
Genesis, as I conceive it, would consist in a com- 
parison of its account of the creation and the 
origin of man, with similar accounts contained 
in the sacred books of other nations, and es- 
pecially in the books of other members of the 
Semitic family. I know that there are persons 
who shrink from a comparison of our religion, 
in any stage of its development, with the re- 
ligions of the world, but I think that their 
timidity is based on scepticism rather than on 
faith. In what a situation, they say, should we 
find ourselves if we discovered that other re- 
ligions possessed our conceptions and our history 
in an older, purer, richer form than our own. and 

_ 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

we were forced to admit that our narratives, if 
not inferior, were borrowed from the Gentiles, 
rather than inspired by God! These persons 
really undervalue their religion, and perhaps they 
will never know how the religion of the Bible is 
inspired until they compare it with the best that 
man has been able to do and to think outside the 
religion of the Old Testament and of Chris- 
tianity. Just as a man who knows only his own 
language does not know that very well, so he 
who knows only his own religion knows it imper- 
fectly. But to those who are acquainted with 
the historical sciences I need not say that this 
method of prudent and fruitful comparison has 
almost recreated the past. 

Not to be tedious, there is the wonderful 
literature of Babylon unearthed by the labors 
of men like Rawlinson and Layard and George 
Smith. At first it was a mere puzzle — slabs of 
clay covered with arrowheads and combinations 
of arrowheads in every conceivable arrangement. 
Gradually a little light begins to dawn. A proper 
name here and there is identified, a town whose 
name is known supplies a few more signifi- 
cant signs. Certain words like prepositions, 
articles, etc., recurring again and again, are iden- 
tified. So it goes on, the light constantly grow- 
ing stronger and broader, until at last we find 
ourselves in the possession of a new language, or 
rather of an old language, which, but for the 
patient toil of these illustrious men, would have 
perished forever. Dictionaries of what is left of 
the old cuneiform inscriptions are slowly and 
painfully prepared. Their grammar, syntax, and 
the etymology of their words are studied, and the 

(8) ~ 



Value of Prudent Comparison 

language turns out to be an old Semitic idiom, 
connected by a thousand ties with Hebrew on 
the one side and with Arabic on the other. 
Armed with this powerful instrument, schol- 
ars return to the inscriptions, and now, instead 
of unintelligible arrowheads on clay, they find 
thoughts. The sign has become significant. 
The intelHgence of men of to-day is confronted 
with the intelligence of men who lived and died 
thousands of years ago. Is not the world the 
richer ? 

But, you say, how do these discoveries affect 
the Book of Genesis? In this way. We find 
here a sister people that has preserved a good 
many of the old family traditions, a people that 
developed a great national literature, which is ab- 
solutely independent of the Hebrew Hterature, 
but which reflects a great deal of light upon it. 
In that literature there is also a Book of Genesis, 
or rather chapters of such a book. Here also 
we find an account of the creation of the world 
and of man, perhaps also of the fall of man, and 
a wonderful account of the deluge. 

Although this is not the place to enter mi- 
nutely into the details of the comparison, I may 
briefly indicate some of its grand results. First 
of all, we find the genuine antiquity of our Book 
of Genesis abundantly vindicated. Before the 
Babylonian inscriptions were thoroughly under- 
stood, and after the Mosaic authorship of Gene- 
sis had been generally abandoned and it was ad- 
mitted that the Book in its present form was not 
older than the Exile, a good many persons con- 
ceived the idea that the contents of Genesis were 
not very old. In other words, it was believed 

_ 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

that Genesis was a manufactured book, com- 
posed throughout by anonymous writers in an 
advanced stage of Hterary art. If this were 
true, it would be a book of Httle vakie. Its 
traditions and wonderful stories, instead of 
coming down to us hoary from an immeasur- 
able past, would be but the inventions of clever 
Jews who lived only five hundred years be- 
fore Christ. It was imagined, therefore, that 
Genesis was not a sincere work. The very archaic 
simplicity of its limpid and matchless style was 
thought to be a piece of literary embellishment, 
Hke the forged poems of Ossian, palmed off on 
an unsuspecting age by an older and more skilful 
Macpherson. 

But that dream, which would simply destroy 
Genesis for most persons, is shattered into frag- 
ments by the discovery of the Genesis of Babylon, 
which George Smith called the '' Chaldean Gen- 
esis." For here, unmistakably, we have a series 
of narratives coined at the same mint, though of 
inferior metal, and representing the oldest tradi- 
tions of another Semitic people, entirely inde- 
pendent of the Hebrew traditions. But this may 
point to the fact that there was a time, before 
these two branches of the Semitic family had dif- 
ferentiated so much that they ceased to speak and 
to understand each other's language, when the 
old traditions of creation, the flood, etc., were the 
common possession of the peoples which after- 
ward became Hebrews and Babylonians. When 
we reflect on the great age of the Babylonian 
civilization, which scholars believe they can trace 
in the ruins of buried cities to at least four thou- 
sand years before Christ, we see that criticism, 



The Old Dilemma 



far from diminishing the real age of the Book of 
Genesis, has added to its age hundreds if not 
thousands of years. 

There is one other general result of this com- 
parison of the Hebrew and the Chaldean Genesis, 
which is of even greater interest. If Moses, in 
the fourteenth century B.C., really wrote the 
Book of Genesis in the sense of being the actual 
composer of its pages without the assistance of 
tradition,^ we should be confronted with a very 
singular dilemma. Either God miraculously 
supplied Moses with exact knowledge of the 
past history of the world, which of himself he 
could not know, or else Moses wrote these 
things entirely out of his own head. In the first 
case, the scientific errors of the book, its con- 
tradictions and repetitions, would be unthink- 
able ; and in the second case, the work would lose 
almost all its value and importance. The histori- 
cal parts, narratives of events which happened 
thousands of years before Moses' birth, would 
fall to the ground. 

That is the old dilemma which has inspired 
centuries of fruitless strife, and which has caused 
the Book of Genesis to stand, as I have said, hke 
a great cube of granite, in the way of all rational 
progress. As long as we state the problem in 
these terms, it is impossible to escape. Hundreds 
of pseudo-scientific works have been written to 
prove that the scientific statements of Genesis are 
literally correct, but they all either do utter 
violence to the real Genesis, or they fail to es- 
tablish their point. Nevertheless, the Book of 
Genesis is true ; it is a sincere and noble composi- 
tion that retains its grandeur and nobility and 



(") 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

its inestimable religious value in spite of all 
scoffers, from Voltaire to Ingersoll. It is 
plain, then, that we must state the problem 
in a different way, in order, on the one hand, 
to free ourselves from the crushing despot- 
ism of authority that has reared itself under 
the name of this book; and, on the other hand, 
in order to hold the real sacredness and inspira- 
tion of Genesis high and inviolate. It -is one of 
the greatest services of the historical, compara- 
tive, or, if you please, the critical method of 
studying the Scripture that it enables us to state 
the problem and to solve it in a way that causes 
the old bitter antithesis of Genesis and Progress, 
of revelation and science, almost to disappear, 
without the sacrifice of anything we ought to de- 
fend. As soon as we see that for many of the 
great narratives of Genesis there are correspond- 
ing narratives in Chaldea whose resemblance is 
unmistakable, it becomes absurd to suppose 
that those narratives originated with Moses or 
with any later Hebrew writer. Certainly the 
Chaldeans did not borrow their accounts of crea- 
tion from the Hebrews, and it is the opinion of 
many of the best scholars that the Hebrews did 
not borrow their accounts from Chaldea at the 
time of the Exile. Therefore, it is not impos- 
sible to suppose that they are two forms of the 
same primitive Semitic tradition, immeasurably 
older than most other portions of the Old Testa- 
ment — a point, however, on which I do not in- 
sist. This also does away with the magical, 
miraculous conception of inspiration which has 
done so much harm both to religion and to sci- 
ence. If every word, if every statement of our 

-_ 



Inspiration of Genesis 



Genesis is miraculously inspired and so is per- 
fectly true, then at least some words and some 
statements of the Chaldean Genesis are inspired 
in the same way, for they are practically identical. 
But, you ask, what does all this lead to ? Where, 
then, does the inspiration of Genesis come in ? In 
what is it superior to those old Babylonian crea- 
tion myths, which may be interesting to scholars, 
but which no Christian of good sense would 
dream of making part of his religion? 

That question does not trouble me. I have 
read many of those writings, and when in the 
course of these studies you read them and com- 
pare them point by point with our Genesis, it 
will not trouble you. You will see then wherein 
the inspiration of Genesis consists. Inspiration, 
breathing in, the drawing of God into the heart, 
is one of the most difftcult words in language 
to define, so difficult that no definition of in- 
spiration has ever been accepted by the Church. 
It is the vibration of the chord in the heart, 
a peculiar quality of composition easy to feel, 
but hard to describe. Let us take the only other 
parallel case we possess, the inspiration of genius. 
Shakespeare, as is well known, derived the ma- 
terials out of which he spun many of his great 
dramas from certain old chronicles and collec- 
tions of tales, such as the " Gesta Romanorum." 
Anything barer, more meagre, than these old 
chronicle narratives it would be hard to conceive; 
certainly there is nothing inspired in them. 
Yet, outside of himself, that was all Shakes- 
peare had. But those simple events, passing 
through the alembic of his imagination, become 
portentous and symbolical. Those forgotten 



(13) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

men and women, recreated by him, and risen, as 
it were, from the dead, infused by his mighty pur- 
pose and animated by his passion, hve again a 
Hfe a thousand times more real than when they 
walked the earth. Their lives, through him, at- 
tain a universal, a permanent significance. In 
them human life seems brought to a focus, and 
on their strength or weakness the final outcome 
of life seems to be staked. This we feel and 
admit to be inspiration. Somehow, Shakespeare 
has breathed in the universal spirit, and he com- 
municates that living breath to his creations, 
making them live and partake to a certain extent 
of universal and enduring life. That is why they 
have the power to move us all. 

So, with even higher and grander genius, the 
author or the authors of the Book of Genesis, 
having found these old Semitic traditions, which 
originally were a mere mass of mythology, in- 
vested them with a form of classic and flawless 
purity, and gave them a significance which has 
touched the heart of the better part of humanity, 
and changed the meaning of the world. If out 
of all the myriad books of earth the chapters 
were to be selected that have borne the great- 
est fruits, the first would be those of the Sermon 
on the Mount, the second would be the first chap- 
ter of Genesis. The only safe test with which I am 
acquainted of the inspiration of any book is the 
effect that book is able to produce. '' Up to this 
moment it has never been given to charlatanism 
or mediocrity to produce anything permanently 
great." Judged by its results, we must pro- 
nounce the Book of Genesis to be one of the 
most truly inspired works ever produced, and 

_ 



Attitude of Other Inspired Writers 

yet a work not above criticism nor free from 
error. 

What encourages me to believe that this view- 
is correct is the fact that the Book of Genesis was 
plainly regarded in this light by other inspired 
writers of the Old Testament. The man, who- 
ever he was, who put the book into its present 
form and gave it, so to speak, its finishing 
touches, could not have regarded the account 
of creation in the first chapter as final or as liter- 
ally binding in all respects. If he had so re- 
garded it, he certainly would not have added a 
second account in the very next chapter con- 
tradicting the first in so many particulars. The 
prophets and the writers of many of the psalms 
never imagined that God had taken any man 
into His confidence so far as to tell him the whole 
scheme of creation exactly as it happened. On 
the contrary, they have their own ideas on that 
subject, which differ widely from the plan laid 
down in Genesis. Job specifically and pointedly 
represents God as saying : 

" Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the 

earth ? 
If thou hast skill, declare ! 
Who took the measure thereof, 
Or who stretched the line upon it ? 
Wherever are the columns of her foundations sunk ? 
Or who laid her corner stone 
When the morning stars sang- together, 
And all the sons of God shouted for joy ? " 

Let me take only one other instance. The nar- 
rative of the Book of Genesis which has had the 
most profound effect on the thought of the world 
is the story of the Fall. Out of this simple, poetic 

~" 05) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

narrative has grown up a vast dogma, which at 
last includes in its domain a large part of human 
life. Millions of men have accepted it literally, 
and have shaped their lives accordingly. Espe- 
cially since the Protestant Reformation has the 
hideous doctrine of a total depravity supposed to 
spring from Adam's transgression rested like a 
nightmare on the conscience of a large part of 
Christendom. It is true, we are growing restive 
under that doctrine now. It seems to us strange 
that God, having made everything so good, 
should be completely defeated by Satan at the 
very outset, and we cannot help fearing if He was 
so defeated once. He may be again, and all the 
results of human sacrifice and toil may be lost in a 
single day. The doctrine that man was created 
perfect is also opposed to all that science is able 
to teach us in regard to human history, which 
shows us man slowly struggling upward from the 
humblest terrestrial beginnings. So, as Chris- 
tians and believers in the Bible, but also as sane 
and rational men, we hardly know how we ought 
to regard this matter. But then, in the very mo- 
ment of our perplexity and doubt, the compara- 
tive method I have already spoken of suggests 
that we should inquire how the saints of old, the 
prophets and other inspired men of God regarded 
this narrative, and to our surprise we find that 
they did not take it literally at all. They under- 
stood far better than we its true significance. 
They did not associate the sinfulness of man with 
the transgression of Adam. In fact, outside the 
account of Genesis, the sin of Adam is only once 
mentioned in the Old Testament, where Job 
casually says : '' If I covered my transgression 

06) ' 



Human Sin Not Referred to Adam 

like Adam by hiding mine iniquity in my 
bosom." * Even Cain is not bound in any way 
to follow his father's example, for the Lord said 
unto Cain, '' Sin lurks before the door and its de- 
sire is for thee, but thou shouldst rule over it." 
And yet the Old Testament has enough to say 
of sin. " God saw that the wickedness of man 
was great in the earth, and that every imagina- 
tion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
continually." There is indeed an original sin, 
but it does not spring from the transgression of 
Adam. It lies in the carnal nature of man. '' Be- 
hold, I was shapen in wickedness and in sin did 
my mother conceive me." The prophets also 
speak of a '' Fall." But it is not the fall of Adam, 
it is Israel's fall from its ideal and destiny. '' Be- 
hold the Lord's hand is not shortened that it can- 
not save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot 
hear. But your iniquities have separated be- 
tween you and your God, and your sins have hid 
his face from you that he will not hear." " But 
now, O Lord, thou art our Father, we are the 
clay and thou our potter, and we all are the work 
of thy hand." f The prophets trace the root of 
this sinfulness to many things, to the people's 
love of worldly possessions, which makes them 
proud and forgetful of God, to sensuality and 
lust and to the fear of man ; but to Adam, or to 
his sin, not once. J 

This certainly encourages us. It shows us 
that it is possible to reverence the Book of Gen- 
esis without being slavishly bound so as to take 
literally what was written poetically and figura- 

* Job, xxxi. 33. f Isaiah, Ixiv. 8. 

^: Schultz, " Alttestamentliche Theologie," 677 ff. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

lively. It gives us faith in our method, and 
hope that we can truly appreciate and reverence 
this noble book without giving up all that, as 
educated men and women, we are bound to 
believe of the workings of God in the history 
of the world. In other words, we may hope that 
the antagonism between Revelation and Reason 
is not final. 



(i8) 



Proof of Composite Authorship 



Chapter Two: 
Critical Survey 

IN the first chapter two assertions were made. 
First, that the Book of Genesis in its present 
form was not written by Moses ; and second, that 
it is not a single composition, written at one 
time by one man, but a combination of at least 
three different compositions, combined like a 
cord twisted out of three threads into one more 
or less continuous narrative. I shall now try to a 
certain extent to make those assertions good. It 
does not seem to me necessary at this point to 
go very minutely into the analysis of the book, 
but I want to lay the main facts of the compo- 
sition of Genesis so plainly before you that 
you will be able to recognize the three different 
documents when we shall have occasion to study 
them later on. A great deal of the proof in re- 
gard to Genesis applies just as well to the compo- 
sition of the whole Pentateuch and to the Book 
of Joshua, for the same documents run through 
them all. But as Genesis is the book we are now 
studying, I shall pay particular attention to that, 
and take most of my examples and illustrations 
from Genesis alone. 

Before we begin this examination, it may be 
worth while to cast a rapid glance over the study 
of the Pentateuch, and to learn a little about the 

0^9) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

men who have brought our knowledge of this 
part of the Bible to its present condition. I shall 
mention only a few of the earHer names. The 
first writer, so far as I know, to throw doubt on 
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, was the 
celebrated Jewish grammarian, Aben Ezra,* who 
died about 1168. ' Aben Ezra's criticism is so 
shrewd and yet so guarded that it is worth quot- 
ing : " If you penetrate the secret of the Twelve 
[last verses of Deuteronomy containing the death 
of Moses], also ' and Moses wrote,' also ' and the 
Canaanite was then in the land,' and ' in the 
mountain of the Lord it shall be seen,' and ' his 
bedstead »vas an iron bedstead,' you will discover 
the truth." What truth will be discovered Aben 
Ezra is careful not to say; but he dismisses the 
matter with the significant hint, '' He who under- 
stands will hold his tongue." But when we turn 
to the passages he indicates we find that they are 
among the very ones which have caused later 
writers to doubt that Moses wrote the Penta- 
teuch. The last twelve verses of Deuteronomy, 
giving an account of Moses' death, could not 
very well have been written by him. True, some 
Jewish writers pretend that Moses described his 
own death scene in advance, but to the most 
orthodox Christian commentators that has 
seemed too absurd. " And Moses wrote " raises 
the question which is still disputed, whether writ- 
ing was known to the Hebrews at the time of 
Moses. The expression, " and the Canaanite was 
then in the land," would certainly seem to have 
been written at a time when the Canaanite was in 
the land no longer, in other words, centuries after 

* "Comment, on Genesis," xii, 6. 



Early Critics 



the death of Moses. This is still regarded as a 
very strong argument. Very similar is the ex- 
pression, " In the mount of the Lord it shall 
be seen," taken from the account of the sacrifice 
of Isaac. The whole sentence runs, " As it is 
said to this day, Jehovah-jireh, that is, in the 
mount of the Lord it shall be seen," in other 
words, a long time after. Lastly, Aben Ezra 
mentions the iron bedstead of Og, the King of 
Bashan, which the author of Deuteronomy says 
was still preserved at his time, evidently because 
he did not believe that men at the time of Moses 
slept on iron bedsteads. 

For a long time these sagacious hints of Aben 
Ezra were not followed up. In the seventeenth 
century, Thomas Hobbes, the celebrated Eng- 
lish philosopher, mentions them in the " Levi- 
athan;"* and Spinoza, the great Jewish pan- 
theist, went so far dS to question the Mosaic 
authorship of most of the Pentateuch, for which 
he was stabbed three times at the door of the 
synagogue and obliged to leave his home. 

The next great step was taken in the last cen- 
tury by the French physician, Jean Astruc, to 
whom belongs the credit of discovering the 
secret of Genesis that had been hidden for so 
many ages. Astruc did not doubt that Moses 
had composed the Pentateuch, but he believed 
that Moses had before him several older docu- 
ments which he combined. He was led to this 
conclusion by the most important discovery that 
up to the present time has been made in this sub- 
ject. Astruc called attention to the fact that in 
the Book of Genesis two different names are em- 

* Chap, xxxiii. 



(21) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

ployed for the Deity, Jehovah and Elohim, and 
that these two names are not used indiscrimi- 
nately, but with entire consistency, one document 
always using the word Elohim (God), and the 
other always using the word Jehovah. This clue 
in the hands of later scholars has been used with 
entire success to separate these two documents. 
If you would satisfy yourself on this point, read 
the first chapter of Genesis down to the middle of 
the fourth verse of chapter second, and then the 
remainder of the second chapter, and you will 
not doubt that they are two entirely independent 
accounts. The styles are different and the ideas 
are also different. The first uses Elohim and the 
second Jehovah (Jahveh) Elohim, 

I shall not attempt to carry this short list much 
further, though there is one other name I wish 
to mention. Every science has its martyrs and 
the science of the Pentateuch has had its share. 
But one of the most unjust actions ever per- 
formed in the name of this collection of writings 
was the deposition of John Colenso, English 
Bishop of Natal, in South Africa, only a little 
more than thirty years ago. It is admitted on all 
sides that Bishop Colenso was a wise and good 
man. Many of his mathematical writings were 
favorably received at Oxford and Cambridge. 
His sermons were edifying and it was confessed 
even by his enemies that he had labored with 
true apostolic zeal in his difficult field in South 
Africa. Colenso, however, was a great scholar, 
one of the greatest students of the Bible the Eng- 
lish Church has produced. He wrote a fine work 
on the Pentateuch, whose value is now gen^ 
erally admitted. But at the time Colenso wrote, 

^ (II) 



Bishop Colenso 



comparatively little was known of these subjects 
in England, and what was known was not liked. 
It must be admitted also that his criticism was 
very negative. Colenso was cited to return to 
England for trial. The trial seems to have been a 
mere farce, as few of his critics were in a position 
to know whether Colenso's views were true or 
false. But Colenso was deposed from his see by 
the vote of forty bishops, who afterwards tried to 
have him excommunicated.* Against this fresh 
injustice, however, the Low Church bishops, to 
their great credit, protested, and the sentence 
was not carried out. I ought to add that Co- 
lenso, so far as I know, is the only man of promi- 
nence in the English Church, of late years, to 
suffer punishment for wishing to study the Old 
Testament with open eyes. As soon as the 
Church of England fairly grasped the situation 
and saw the reasonableness of the views put for- 
ward by Bishop Colenso, with her infallible good 
sense and love of justice she allowed no one else 
to be persecuted for holding them. Dr. McCon- 
nell, in his article on Matthew Arnold, in the 
'' Churchman," goes so far as to say that Co- 
lenso's views on the Pentateuch are now held by 
nine-tenths of the English bishops. How far this 
is true I do not know, but there is every reason 
to believe that in a general way they are the views 
of Dr. Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
so long as he, or men of like liberality, continue 
to shape the destinies of the English Church, it is 

* I have been informed by a personal friend of Colenso's that 
the Bishop's popularity was such that the verdict of the English 
court was disregarded in South Africa and he remained in peace- 
able possession of his cathedral in Natal until his death. 

(23) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

improbable that sincere and devout scholars will 
be interfered with. Nothing has done the Epis- 
copal Church more good, nothing has attracted 
to her more rninds of the better class, than her 
wise and enlightened tolerance. The most sui- 
cidal policy a church at the present age of civili- 
zation can pursue is to expel and humiliate her 
scholars. Every church that is to hold its own 
for the next century, God knows will have need 
of them. Every scholar who comes to us because 
he is persecuted and driven out of his own 
church, brings others in his train and we gain not 
only in numbers, but in reputation for tolerance 
and good manners, which will bring us thou- 
sands more. 

The names of other writers in this field I will 
not mention, as they would be unknown to most 
of us. But I should like to say that the historical, 
or, if you please, the critical method of studying 
the Bible, is not a fad in the hands of a few special- 
ists. It is part of a universal method of studying 
the history of the past which will never be aban- 
doned so long as history remains a science. Its 
results are now incorporated into every first class 
work of reference, such as the Encyclopaedia Bri- 
tannica ; it has evoked the labors of the most dis- 
tinguished scholars of all lands, and its results 
have risen slowly into a science that is now recog- 
nized the world over. As regards the Book of 
Genesis, the general result of a century's work is 
something like this. Moses is not believed to be 
the author of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch 
is not the composition of any one man, nor of any 
one time. It does not, however, consist of a 
number of fragments thrown together hap- 

(^4) 



Repetitions in Genesis 



hazard, but, on the contrary, of three or four 
separate documents or compositions, well de- 
fined and for the most part easy to detach from 
one another, which run through the entire Pen- 
tateuch and the Book of Joshua. That brings 
me back precisely to the point at which I started. 
But you are still waiting for the proof. Let me 
see if I can render it. 

That the Book of Genesis is not the work of 
one mind is proved, among other things, by the 
numerous repetitions it contains, some of which 
contradict each other so flatly that we are obliged 
to choose either one or the other, but cannot 
take both. No good writer composes in this way. 
As late as the fifth chapter, after the story of the 
Creation and of Adam has been told and dis- 
missed, the narrative seems to begin all over 
again. " This is the book of the generations of 
Adam : in the day that God created man, in the 
likeness of God made He him." So the story that 
Abraham on a visit to Egypt pretended that 
Sarah was not his wife, but his sister, is told first 
in the twelfth chapter, where she was seized by 
Pharaoh, and again in almost the same language 
in the twentieth chapter, where she was seized by 
Abimelech, King of Gerar; and, strangely, the 
same story is told a third time in the twenty-sixth 
chapter, of Isaac and Rebekah. Isaac pretends 
that Rebekah is his sister, just as Abraham pre- 
tended that Sarah was his sister ; and Abimelech 
steals Rebekah just as he had formerly seized 
Sarah, and relinquishes her, just as he had done 
before. Of course it may be said that the episode 
occurred three separate times, but this is very 
improbable. It is also an inconsistency that 



(25) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Sarah, who some time before was represented as 
ninety years old, and, as the New Testament says, 
" as good as dead," should still be so beautiful as 
to attract the attention of the whole country. 
Similarly, the story of Hagar's expulsion from 
the tent of Abraham is related twice, and each 
tiriie her life is saved by divine intervention ; and 
the second time Ishmael, who was at least four- 
teen years old, is represented as a little child 
whom Hagar carries in her arms. The first ex- 
pulsion was before Ishmael was born, the second 
w^hen he was fourteen. So the covenant of God 
with Abraham is related twice, and Isaac's birth 
is promised twice. No one ought to expect to 
find these stories in exactly the same form ; they 
are not in the same form, and the reason why they 
are not is because they represent two independ- 
ent traditions of the same event. The meaning of 
Isaac's name is explained in three ways. Firstty, 
it is Abraham who laughs ; secondly, it is Sarah 
who laughs with incredulity, though she denied 
it and said, '' I laughed not ; " and thirdly, it is 
God who makes Sarah laugh. '' And Sarah said, 
God hath made me to laugh, so that all they 
that hear will laugh with me." So the name of 
Esau, considered as the father of Edom (red), is 
explained in two ways. Firstly, it is because he 
was red when born. Secondly, Esau said to Jacob, 
" Feed me with that red pottage, for I am faint. 
Therefore his name was called Esau." In the 
two accounts of the Flood, Noah is told in chap- 
ter sixth, '' Of every living thing of all flesh, two 
of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark," and 
in the seventh chapter, " Of every clean and un- 
clean beasts thou shalt take to thee by sevens." 



Inconsistencies 



We may also mention the great impropriety 
of speaking of clean and unclean beasts at the 
time of the Flood, ages before such distinc- 
tions had been drawn. Twice we are told that the 
waters were forty days upon the earth, and again 
that they increased for one hundred and fifty 
days. In the eleventh chapter, just after a long 
account has been given of the dispersion of the 
descendants of Noah to all parts of the earth, the 
story goes back to the Tower of Babel, and im- 
agines all men still living together and speaking 
one language, and the story of the confusion of 
tongues is told to show how they came to sep- 
arate. In the sixth chapter, the limit of man's 
age is fixed at one hundred and twenty years, but 
soon after, Noah is represented as nine hundred 
and fifty years old when he died, and many of his 
descendants are from two hundred to five hun- 
dred years old. 

I might go on multiplying these instances in- 
definitely, but, not to be wearisome, I will men- 
tion only the most striking example of all — the 
two accounts of Creation. In the first chapter, 
animals were madebefore man; and in the second 
chapter (beginning at verse 5), animals were 
made after man, and were brought to him to re- 
ceive their names. In the first chapter plants and 
green herbs were made long before man. In the 
second chapter, verse 5, the Hebrew reads, '' Not 
a shrub of the field was then upon the earth, and 
not a herb of the field had sprouted, because 
Jehovah Elohim had not yet made it to rain upon 
the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the 
ground. And Jehovah Elohim formed man of 
the dust of the ground, and breathed in his nos- 



(27) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

trils the breath of Hfe, and man became a Hving 
being." "^ 

In the first chapter, the dry ground rises out of 
the waters ; in the second, the whole earth is dry 
because it has not rained. In the first chapter 
man and woman were made together. '^ And 
Elohim created man in His own image, in the 
image of Elohim He created him, male and fe- 
male created He them." In the second chapter 
man was made first, and woman afterward was 
taken out of his side. In the first chapter, creation 
occupied six separate days; in the second chap- 
ter, only one day. Lastly, in the first chapter, 
Elohim is the Creator ; in the second, it is Jeho- 
vah Elohim who makes all things. 

Examples of this sort prove conclusively that 
the Book of Genesis, as it lies before us, was not 
a single composition, the work of one mind. On 
that supposition, these contradictions and varia- 
tions would be unthinkable, unless the author 
wrote with reckless haste and cared nothing 
about contradicting himself half a dozen times 
in as many sentences. But as soon as we get the 
right point of view, it becomes very natural. 
There were at least three narratives lying before 
the author who gave the book its present form, 
all venerable, all beloved, and all telling much the 
same story in different ways. What more natural 
for this author, wishing to incorporate into his 
work as many of these priceless stories as pos- 
sible and knowing that the people were accus- 
tomed to hear these old narratives in. different 
forms, than to sacrifice just as little of them as 
he could, and even to admit two or more versions 

* Lenormant's translation. 

(28) 



Mosaic Authorship Questioned 

of the same story, where all seemed to him beau- 
tiful and to teach good lessons ? These examples 
are fatal to the supposition that Moses or any 
other one man was the author, in a literal sense, 
of this book. But at the same time, may it not 
have been Moses who collected the various tra- 
ditions and who gave the Book of Genesis the 
form in which it now lies before us ? That is an 
entirely different question, but it is an important 
question, and I do not think I need apologize for 
discussing it with you at some length. Let us see 
first what reason we have for associating Moses 
with this work at all."^ 

The Book of Genesis does not bear the name of 
Moses. Nowhere in the book is it said that 
Moses was its author. In the later books of the 
Pentateuch, where Moses is mentioned, it is al- 
ways in the third person. We have seen already 
that Genesis was not the work of one mind. It 
remains to ascertain if it could have been 
brought to its present form at the time of Moses. 
Now the only way to determine such a question is 
to observe whether the book contains allusions 
to events that happened after Moses' death. If 
so, the book, in its present form, must be later 
than Moses. If, for example, we were trying to 
find out whether George Washington wrote a 
certain work, we should have to proceed in ex- 
actly the same way. If the book contained no 
reference to events after the year 1799, when 
Washington died, it would not be historically 

* The Jewish tradition that Moses is the author of the Penta- 
teuch rests on the late authority of Philo, Josephus and the 
Talmud. From the synagogue this belief passed into the New 
Testament, and thence into Christian versions of the Bible, and 
into the old church lists of the books of the Old Testament. 

(^9) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

impossible that Washington wrote it. But if 
the book referred to cities which were not then 
in existence, or to Presidents who followed 
Washington, or to the Mexican War, no one 
in his senses could imagine that the book was 
written by the Father of his Country. In the 
Book of Genesis, it is true, there are no such glar- 
ing anachronisms as those I have mentioned, and 
yet there are a good many little indications 
that the book in its present form was put to- 
gether many centuries after the death of 
Moses. 

When we read, for example, that when Abra- 
ham went to Sichem '' the Canaanite was still in 
the land," we can hardly doubt that this passage 
was written at a time when the Canaanite was no 
longer there and when people had even forgot- 
ten that he once dwelt there. Or when in the 
thirty-sixth chapter it is said, " These are the 
kings who reigned in Edom, before there reigned 
any king over the children of Israel," we should 
most naturally suppose that this chapter was 
written after kings were known in Israel, at the 
earliest, in the time of Saul. In the same way, 
Joseph says to the butler of Pharaoh, '' I was 
stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews," 
meaning, of course, the land of Canaan. Now 
that land was not in any sense the land of the 
Israelites until some time after the death of 
Moses. '' Abraham," we read in the fourteenth 
chapter, '' pursued them to Dan." Dan was the 
chief city of the tribe of Dan when the children of 
Israel had divided the land long after Moses' 
death. Before that it was called Lachish. Again, 
the author who gave the book its present form 

(3^) ' 



Argumekt from Laws 



undoubtedly lived in Canaan. To him the coun- 
try east of Jordan is beyond Jordan. The west he 
always describes as toward the sea, and the south 
as toward the desert. To him the sun rises from 
beyond Jordan, whereas to Moses it would set 
beyond Jordan. Add to this that Moses' father- 
in-law is called by three different names, Reuel, 
Jethro and Hobab. Whatever were Moses' re- 
lations with his father-in-law, it is improbable 
that he did not know his name. All this becomes 
much plainer and more convincing if, instead 
of confining ourselves to single passages in Gen- 
esis, we take the Pentateuch as a whole ; and we 
have a perfect right to do so, since those who 
claim that Moses was the author of Genesis 
also claim that he wrote the whole Penta- 
teuch. And they are right to this extent, that 
the same documents we find in Genesis run 
through the whole Pentateuch. This is a much 
more satisfactory and interesting task, although 
it is a shghtly different one. In the later books of 
the Pentateuch, in Exodus, Deuteronomy and 
Leviticus, we find a highly organized system of 
civil and religious law, and elaborate rules for 
worship and ritual which purport to have been 
delivered by Moses. Were those laws known to 
anyone for hundreds of years after Moses? Were 
they enforced? That is a very simple question 
and easily answered, and its answer ought to be 
conclusive. The Constitution of the United 
States, for example, was framed in the year 1787, 
and finally ratified in the year 1789, March 4th. 
Now if anyone seriously told you that he had 
reasons for believing that the Constitution of 
the United States was in effect at least a hundred 



(31) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

years before that date, you would naturally say, 
" Show me some proof that it was in effect at this 
time." And if, on reviewing the history of the 
colonies during the eighteenth century, you 
found no indication that anyone knew of the Con- 
sitution, but rather that men constantly violated 
its prescriptions without being aware that they 
were breaking the supreme law of the land; 
if judges and the governors of the colonies 
showed no signs of ever having heard of the Con- 
stitution, you would regard that, I presume, as 
sufficient proof that the Constitution was not 
then in existence. You may think this a strong 
comparison, but really it is not too strong. The 
whole Book of Leviticus, and to a certain extent 
Deuteronomy, rest on the assumption that 
Jehovah can be worshipped acceptably only in 
one place; that outside this supreme sanctuary 
no altar might be built, no incense rise, no sacri- 
fice might be offered, and that in this sanctuary 
no one but the anointed sons of Aaron might 
serve, assisted by the Levites. Nobody else might 
even enter the holy place (" the stranger that 
Cometh nigh shall be put to death "), and to build 
an altar to God anywhere else is an act of the 
highest sacrilege. Of all this the older history 
knows nothing at all. Samuel, the little Eph- 
raimite boy, was accustomed to sleep in the sanc- 
tuary. He lies down to sleep in the temple of the 
Lord, where the ark was, before the lamp of God 
had gone out. David was accustomed to enter 
the holy place whenever he chose; and Samuel, 
Elijah and Elisha, far from thinking that there 
was only one sacred place where God could be 
worshipped acceptably, worshipped God freely 

_ 



Argument from Sacrifice 



and built altars to Him wherever they hap- 
pened to be. Elijah rebuilds the altar on Carmel 
and '' mourns to God " that men have cast his 
altars down. We can only say, therefore, that 
these great prophets could have known nothing 
of the commands of Leviticus and Deuteronomy 
which they constantly violated. In the Book of 
Exodus, moreover, it distinctly says, '' An altar of 
earth thou shalt make unto me, and in every place 
where I record my name I will come unto thee 
and bless thee." 

It is very much the same with regard to sac- 
rifice. In Exodus and Leviticus, the most minute 
rules are laid down regulating the sacrifice of 
animals and religious feasts. Sacrifice is as- 
sumed to be the highest form of worship that 
God enjoined upon Moses. If there is one thing 
on which these books insist, it is the constant of- 
fering of sacrifice. Therefore it almost takes our 
breath away when we read in the prophet Jere- 
miah, " Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of 
Israel, add burnt offerings to your sacrifices and 
eat ye flesh [i.e., eat them], for I spake not unto 
your forefathers nor commanded them in the day 
I brought them out of the land of Egypt concern- 
ing burnt offerings or sacrifices, but this thing I 
commanded them, saying. Hearken unto my 
voice and I will be your God and ye shall be my 
people." * 

Also Micah, vi. 6-8, " Wherewith shall I come 
before the Lord, and bow myself before the high 
God? Shall I come before Him with burnt of- 
ferings, with calves of a year old ? Will the Lord 
be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten 

*Jer. vii. 21-23. 



(33) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first 
born for my transgression, the fruit of my body 
for the sin of my soul ? He hath shewed thee, O 
man, what is good; and what doth the Lord re- 
quire of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and 
to walk humbly with thy God? " 

Also Amos, V. 21, '' I hate, I despise your feast 
days, and I will take no delight in your solemn 
assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt 
offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept 
them ; neither will I regard the peace offerings of 
your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise 
of thy songs ; for I will not hear the melody of thy 
viols. But let judgment roll down as waters and 
righteousness as a mighty stream. Did ye bring 
unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness 
forty years, O house of Israel ? ' ' 

Also Isaiah, i. 11-12, " To what purpose is the 
multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the 
Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, 
and the fat of fed beasts, and I dehght not in the 
blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 
When ye come before me, who hath required this 
at your hand, to trample my courts ? " It may be 
said that these great prophets only condemn sac- 
rifice because it is not attended by moral reforma- 
tion. But if they were aware of these books of 
the Pentateuch, nine-tenths of which are taken 
up with enjoining sacrifice on divine authority, 
under the threat of terrible punishment, how 
could they assert that Jehovah had never com- 
manded it, or inquire ironically when and where 
Jehovah had ever demanded it? In other words, 
men like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah knew noth- 
ing of the existence of a large part of the Penta- 

(34) 



Legal Codes Require Revision 

teuch ; but, if they did not know it, as Bacon per- 
tinently asks, who did ? ''' 

Lastly, a general statement of principles like 
the Magna Charta or the Constitution of the 
United States may stand for centuries with but 
few modifications, because it is so general and 
abstract; but a positive code of civil, criminal 
and canon law requires to be modified con- 
stantly to meet the changing conditions of society 
as they arise. A code of laws unchanged for five 
hundred years would be a dead letter to any liv- 
ing people. Hence we cannot suppose that the 
laws of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, 
which were actually in effect from the fifth cen- 
tury, were composed by Moses nine hundred 
years before. 

* For a clear and explicit statement of the critical questions 
treated in this lecture, I refer the reader to the excellent work of 
Bacon, "Genesis of Genesis," chap, ii. 



(35) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Three : 

Composition of Genesis and Character of Its 
Narratives 

A GREAT part of our first two chapters was 
taken up in showing that the Book of Gen- 
esis as it stands to-day is not a single composi- 
tion, the work of one mind, but a compilation, a 
weaving together of at least three narratives into 
one narrative. I have called it a cord composed 
of three strands. The time is come, if our work is 
to be solid and in any sense scientific, for you to 
see this with your own eyes. I cannot help re- 
gretting that the polychrome edition of Genesis 
is not yet in print. If we could see the Book of 
Genesis resolved into its parts on a printed page ; 
if we could see our red thread, our white thread, 
and our blue thread separated from one another 
and displayed, so that without any difficulty we 
could study each one and compare one with an- 
other, it would not only be much easier for us 
to believe in their existence, but we could not 
help noticing their peculiarities for ourselves. 
Let me, however, attempt to do in a rough way 
what the polychrome Genesis will do in an infi- 
nitely better way. There is one thing, however, 
for which I am very anxious ; that is, to be under- 
stood. I shall therefore sacrifice a great deal in 
order to be clear and simple. I know from ex- 

(36) 



Proofs of Composite Authorship 

perience that these subjects are very difficult to 
grasp for the first time. 

I suppose all persons who read the Bible at all, 
even if they do not read it very carefully, must 
have been struck by the complete difference of 
style and order of ideas they encounter in passing 
from one chapter of Genesis to another. Open- 
ing the book at random, my eye falls on the inimi- 
table story of the murder of Abel. I see at once 
that it is an exquisite piece of literature. It 
would be hard to find in a few words a character 
more vigorously and finely depicted than Cain's. 
The whole tragedy is enacted before our eyes. 
We see him, sullen and lowering with jealousy, 
follow Abel into some lonely place. We see the 
savage, murderous resolution quickly embraced 
and more quickly carried into effect. We hear 
the shriek of Abel as he falls dying to the ground, 
and the earth drinks up the blood of the first 
victim of human violence. The Lord ap- 
pears with His question, '' Where is Abel thy 
brother? " implying that He has seen the awful 
deed. Cain tries to carry it off with a defiant air, 
very much as we turn away those who accuse us 
of wrong. " Am I my brother's keeper?" Then 
God shows Cain that the eternal secrecy on which 
we all count has deceived him. " What hast thou 
done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth 
unto me from the ground," and soon all Cain's 
bold defiance is turned into abject fear. God 
curses him, whereas for Adam's sin He had only 
cursed the ground, and affixes to him for all time 
the *'mark of Cain." In every fibre ©f this 
sombre story we feel the hand of a great artist, a 
master in the art of expression, and a man of such 

" (37) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

knowledge of human nature and of such ele- 
vated moral views that the best writer among us 
to-day could not touch his story without injur- 
ing it. That little narrative is classical; it is a 
masterpiece so perfect that to-day we shudder as 
we read it. 

I read along a few verses and my eye is caught 
by a little poem. It is the sword song of Lamech : 
" And Lamech said unto his wives, 

' Adah and Zillah, hear my voice. 
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech. 
For I have slain a man for wounding me, 
And a young- man for bruising me. 
If Cain avenged himself seven fold, 
Truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.' " 

It seems to be the voice of an inhabitant of the 
stone age that is singing this murderous little 
chant. Some hairy, savage cave dweller, armed 
with a stone club, is chanting his crimes aloud to 
the delight of his two half-human wives, Adah 
and Zillah. Of the deep religious feeling and 
lofty morality of the story of Cain, with its in- 
tense respect for human life, there is not one 
trace. Lamech shouts with cannibalistic joy 
over the fact that he has killed two men. He 
declares himself superior to Cain, who has 
killed only one, and he promises himself the pleas- 
ure of killing seventy-five more. Of remorse, of 
the thought of God, there is not a hint, and we 
feel instinctively that this little savage, if he ever 
existed, never heard of the God who spoke to 
Cain's conscience. 

Now those are two stories taken, probably, 
from two of our documents; both old, but the 

story of Lamech I think all will feel is the older. 
__ _ _ _ 



Lamech's Song and Genealogy 



As a matter of fact, that strange little song is in all 
probability the oldest thing in the Bible and one 
of the oldest pieces of human composition. It 
comes down to us like those rude pictures, so full 
of life, of an extinct mammoth or a woolly ele- 
phant, scrawled by some savage on the wall of his 
den ten thousand years ago, worthless artistically, 
but of inestimable value in determining the past 
history of our race. 

I read only a few verses further and my eye 
falls on a third passage entirely unlike the other 
two : ''Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and 
begot a son in his own image after his own like- 
ness, and called his name Seth, and the days of 
Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred 
years, and he begot sons and daughters. And 
all the years Adam lived were nine hundred and 
thirty years, and he died." So it goes on to Seth, 
and from Seth to Enos, and from Enos to Cainan, 
and from Cainan to Mahalaleel. So it goes on 
through Jared and Enoch, and Methuselah who 
outstripped them all in Hving nine hundred and 
sixty-nine years, and ends, oddly enough, with 
this same Lamech, who is here represented as the 
father of Noah. 

I think almost anyone can feel that this 
passage is entirely different from the story of 
Cain or the song of Lamech. The style, in the 
first place, is very peculiar. It is the dry style of 
the annahst. He has certain formulas which he 
uses over and over again. All his heroes do the 
same thing — they beget children, and they die at 
a very advanced age. This passage is not moral, 
and it is not immoral ; it is not poetry, and it is not 
history. In short, it is nothing but an example of 

(39) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

that peculiar species of flora so highly prized by 
many in our days — a genealogical tree. 

But now I find, although I was not aware of it 
when I set out, that I have cited specimens of two 
and perhaps of the three different documents of 
the Book of Genesis. The story of Cain was told 
by '' the Jehovist ; " the story of Lamech was pos- 
sibly told by the writer we call '' the Elohist," and 
the genealogical tree is certainly the work of *'the 
Priestly Writer," whose book we call " the 
Priests' Code." 

It would be wrong, of course, to try to con- 
struct the characteristics of these three writers 
from only three fragments taken by chance, yet 
there are several important facts found here that 
are worth noticing. In the first place, the Jehovist 
is not only a fine and interesting writer, but a man 
of deep spiritual insight. He knows how to de- 
scribe the nature of sin, the hardening of con- 
science and the awakening of conscience, in a 
most telling way, which is all the more impressive 
because it is told in the form of a story that no 
child could ever forget. He is a master of the 
resources of language, and a profoundly moral 
man. There is another fact of great importance. 
He uses the name of Jehovah or Jahveh alone. 
Cain brings the fruit of his ground as an offering 
to Jahveh. Jahveh has respect to him. Jahveh 
says to Cain, ''Why art thou wroth?" So on 
through the whole story. 

The song of Lamech is not so satisfactory. It 

is absolutely unique, and we are not certain that it 

was originally contained in the work of him we 

call the Elohist. But supposing it to be his work, 

we see that it is wholly different from the work of 
__ _ 



Authors Compared 



the Jehovist. It is not moral, it is not religious, 
and apparently it is not history. It is just a little 
piece of folk-lore which would strike the attention 
of a writer who was intent on preserving the tra- 
ditions of his people. But there is one important 
fact in this story which we must not overlook. 
Lamech knows the history of Cain very well. He 
.does not take warning by its moral, and perhaps 
as he knew the story it did not possess the same 
form it has now. But, as we have seen, Lamech's 
song is very old, perhaps the oldest thing in the 
Bible ; therefore, the tradition of Cain's murder 
must be older still. 

Passing from this to the genealogical tree of 
him whom we call the Priestly Writer, we notice 
that he also uses Elohim for the name of God, like 
the Elohist, but his style is so peculiar and his 
material so homogeneous that we are at little loss 
in picking out his work. He is very careful never 
to use the word Jehovah in the Book of Genesis. 
He waits until God makes himself known to 
Moses in Exodus. In the sixth chapter of Exo- 
dus we read : *' God spake unto Moses and said, I 
am Jehovah and I appeared unto Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob by the name God Almighty (El 
Schaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not 
known to them." The Jehovist, however, does 
not take this view. Speaking of Enos, the 
grandson of Adam, he says, " Then began men 
to call on the name of Jehovah." There are one 
or two other things I wish to call attention to. 
The Priestly Writer's style is simple, and, at times, 
grand and impressive, but very dry. His history 
is entirely unlike the lively, warm, highly colored 
story of Cain. He loves to relate the genealogies 



(41) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of families, like the one we have just read. In so 
doing he constantly uses the same language. 
That helps us to discover him. Let me give you 
one example. Again and again he says, " This 
is the book of the generations of Adam." " These 
are the generations of the heaven and the earth 
when they were created," " These are the genera- 
tions of Noah." In speaking of Adam he says, 
" Adam begat a son in his own likeness after his 
own image." We turn back to the first chapter of 
Genesis and read in almost the same words, '' God 
said, let us make man in our own image after our 
Hkeness;" ''God created man in His own image." 
So that we are sure it was this Priestly Writer 
who wrote the most wonderful chapter of our 
book, and one of the most wonderful pages man 
has ever penned — the first chapter of Genesis. 

Having thus introduced you to the three prin- 
cipal sources which together make up our Book 
of Genesis and all the Pentateuch as well, with the 
exception of Deuteronomy, I wish now to char- 
acterize them a little more broadly and to show 
how much, or rather how little, we know of their 
authors. Of the men themselves, indeed, we 
know almost nothing. If their works ever bore 
their names, the names have utterly disappeared. 

The Priest's Code runs through the Penta- 
teuch and forms a considerable part of the books 
of Exodus and Leviticus. As the legal and ritual 
parts of those books were not known to early 
history or to the prophets, it is safe to infer that 
the Priestly narrative in its present form is not 
very old. The Book of Leviticus, e.g., as a 
book, is later than the Prophet Ezekiel, who died 
about 572 B.C., and probably as late as Ezra (444 



Priestly Writer 



B.C.). That does not prevent the contents of the 
book from being very ancient, an important fact 
which we shall see further illustrated when we 
study the first chapter of Genesis. The chief in- 
terest of this writer, as we should expect from the 
compiler of Leviticus, is in the laws, institutions, 
and customs of Israel, and he loves to explain 
their origins. He tells us the story of the first 
Sabbath, when God rested from all His work. 
He tells us how God made the rainbow to appear 
in the cloud as a token of his covenant with Noah. 
He wishes to explain the origin of circumcision, 
but he is confronted with the fact that many 
other tribes besides the IsraeHtes practised it, so 
he is constrained to refer it back to Abraham 
that it may appear that the nations supposed to 
have descended from Abraham learned circum- 
cision from him. Although this Priestly Writer 
sometimes deals with history, it is chiefly for the 
sake of accounting for certain laws or customs. 
Even in his inimitable first chapter of Genesis he 
does not tell the story of creation out of love for 
natural science, but in order to show what ar- 
rangements were made for man, and by what 
means the chosen people were gradually formed, 
and from what noble. God-fearing men they were 
descended. Accordingly he is very much inter- 
ested in family history, which sometimes contracts 
to a mere thread. We see in his writings none of 
the warmth of feeling of the Jehovist. He pre- 
sents few interesting anecdotes; he paints few 
great characters. One feels that he is always 
in a hurry to get through, but is prevented by his 
innumerable repetitions. His language is dry, 
stiff and legal, with the frequent reiteration of 



(43) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

certain favorite forms of expression. We can 
always tell when a new chapter of his work begins 
in Genesis, for he always introduces it in the same 
way, '' These are the generations of Adam," 
" This is the genealogy of Noah," etc. 

On the other hand, his views of the Deity are 
very elevated, if somewhat cold. He is an abso- 
lute monotheist. Elohim is the unique cause of all 
that exists. The few slight traces of older forms 
of belief distinguishable in the first chapter of 
Genesis are there only because he did not wish to 
do too much violence to traditions as old as the 
hills, and we maybe thankful that he did not ruth- 
lessly destroy them, for, as we shall soon see, they 
give us a world to think about. We feel the dif- 
ference at once in passing from the Priestly nar- 
rative of the first chapter of Genesis to the Je- 
hovist's account in the second chapter. The Je- 
hovist's story is warmer, more picturesque, more 
anthropomorphic, but it fails in sublimity and in 
the absolute simplicity of logic and' of language 
that makes the first chapter sui generis. Elohim 
creates one thing after another in a perfectly log- 
ical sequence by His word. There is the same 
monotony and paucity of expression which we 
always observe in the Priest's Code, but the story 
is so short and the thought. so grand that the style 
sustains it. In the first chapter the point of view 
of the writer is with God Himself in space. What 
we lose in richness of color and in variety of form 
is more than made up by the grand simplicity of 
outline which meets our eye at this height. The 
Jehovist, elsewhere so superior to him, and whose 
story at once becomes fraught with tremendous 
interest as soon as he reaches the moral life of 

— 



Compositions of Priestly Writer 

man, in his account of creation is distinctly in- 
ferior. Instead of ascending to heaven with Elo- 
him, he makes his Jehovah descend to earth. 
Jehovah is in creation, not above it. He has to 
work with his hands, fashioning man out of clay 
like a maker of images, taking a rib out of Adam's 
side. He cannot create by a mere fiat. In fact, 
the first account, the story of the Priestly Writer, 
so far outshines the second, the work of the Jeho- 
vist, that we almost forget that two accounts 
exist. 

For the rest, the Priestly Writer holds aus- 
tere and simple views of God. The God who 
makes coats for men, comes down and converses 
with them familiarly, sups with Abraham and 
makes Sarah laugh, is not his Creator, whom he 
carefully shields from every suspicion of famil- 
iarity. He even goes so far as to avoid all men- 
tion of angels and dreams, and, true to the prin- 
ciple laid^ down in Leviticus of one supreme 
shrine and one altar, he avoids all mention of the 
old shrines and sacred places of Canaan which 
the other two writers love to associate with the 
lives of the patriarchs. 

The principal passages in Genesis from his pen, 
besides the first chapter, are : 

1. The genealogies of the ten antediluvian 
patriarchs and the genealogies generally. 

2. The story of the Flood, except some verses 
written by the Jehovist. 

3. Possibly the strange fourteenth chapter 
relating Abraham's war with Chedorlaomer and 
his allies, and the episode of Melchizedek, King of 
Salem, which, however, has a very foreign sound. 

4. God's covenant with Abraham by circum- 

— 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

cision, the promise of Isaac, the purchase of the 
cave of Machpelah, and a very brief account of 
the famihes of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. 

All we can say of the author himself is that he 
used the old narratives in the peculiar way we 
have described, and that in all probability he was 
a priest in Jerusalem, living at a much later time 
than the Elohist and the Jehovist. Judging 
from his part in the work of Leviticus, he lived 
not much before 450 B.C. 

The tw^o remaining narrators, the Elohist and 
the Jehovist, as a rule are easy to distinguish in 
Genesis 'on account of the different names they 
employ for the Deity, but they are not so easy 
to describe, as they resemble each other far 
more than either resembles the Priestly Writer. 
On the whole, we may say that the Elohist, while 
a sincerely religious writer, is less exclusively 
so than the Jehovist. He is also very much 
interested in the traditions and legends of his 
people, for which the Priestly Writer cared ab- 
solutely nothing. He has preserved many names, 
such as Eliezer, the steward of Abraham; Poti- 
phar, the Egyptian master of Joseph ; Deborah, 
the prophetess, etc. He likes to recount old 
local traditions, like the story of the heap of 
stones Laban and Jacob erected as a witness 
of their friendship, and he tells us what each 
one called it. He is careful to inform us how 
many pieces of silver Jacob paid for the piece of 
ground he bought from the children of Haran. 
He is very fond of associating old landmarks 
with important acts in the lives of the patriarchs, 
e.g., Jacob's dream of the ladder, and tlie stone he 
set up at Bethel to mark this event. He recounts 

(46) 



Characteristics of Elohist 



without the least hesitation Jacob's strange meet- 
ing with the Mahanaim — the host of God's angels 
— which the Priestly Writer assuredly would 
have suppressed. He relates the charming story 
of Jacob's love for Rachel, which so occupied his 
thoughts that seven years seemed but a few days 
in passing. He also tells how Laban deceived him 
by substituting Leah, which makes us doubt 
whether Jacob could have loved Racliel so much 
after all. He also composed certain portions of 
the story of Joseph. The parts of this story that 
most interested the Elohist are those weird and 
bizarre dreams which come from his pen, and are 
of the very stuff that dreams are made of. The 
singular dreams of the butler and baker which 
Joseph so cleverly explained, the vine with the 
three branches wliose grapes the butler pressed 
into Pharaoh's cup, the basket of bake-meats 
which the birds lifted up and which implied that 
the unlucky butler's head would soon share the 
same fate, Pharaoh's uncanny dream of the fat 
and lean cattle, on which so much is made to de- 
pend, are his creations. He also paints for us 
many pleasing pictures of family life in the olden 
times, the free, grand life of patriarchal days, 
and he draws fine portraits of those splendid 
grave men, wandering like little kings from place 
to place, with their numerous wives, their chil- 
dren, whom they dearly loved, their camels, their 
flocks, and their slaves. He tells the story, per- 
haps the most touching in the Old Testament, 
of Abraham's wilhngness to sacrifice his child 
to God, and he shows us also how, after Abra- 
ham's faith had been tried to the uttermost, the 
grand, ennobling conviction comes to him that 



(47) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

God does not desire the sacrifice of the life He 
gave. It is precisely such a story as this that 
proves the real inspiration of Genesis. It has 
no counterpart in the literature of any other 
people. 

The work of the Elohist begins comparatively 
late in Genesis. Except for a few important frag- 
ments we find no trace of him before the twen- 
tieth chapter, when he begins by telling how 
Abimelech stole Sarah. There is every reason to 
believe that his work was originally of much 
wider scope, but the compiler of Genesis, making 
use of the Priestly Writer and the Jehovist for 
the earlier chapters, permitted that portion of 
the Elohist's work to perish, which is a great 
pity. 

In our Genesis the principal narrations from 
the pen of the Elohist are : 

1. The capture of Sarah by Abimelech. 

2. The story of Isaac and Ishmael ; how Hagar 
was driven out the second time. 

3. Abraham's covenant with Abimelech at the 
wells of water. 

4. The sacrifice of Isaac. 

5. Isaac's blessing; how Jacob supplanted 
Esau. 

6. Jacob's dream at Bethel. 

7. His service with Laban ; Leah and Rachel. 

8. Jacob's children; how the twelve patri- 
archs were born and named. 

9. His return to his home, and the meeting 
with Esau. 

10. Part of the story of Joseph, especially in 
regard to his dreams and the dreams ^ the 
Egyptians. 

(48) 



Characteristics of Jehovist 



11. Joseph's revelation to his brethren. 

12. How Jacob came into Egypt. 

In regard to the personaHty of the Elohist Ht- 
tle is known, and it does not seem to me that it 
would be worth while painfully to gather and 
compare the few hints he lets fall. I will merely 
say that he is believed to have lived in the eighth 
century B.C., or more than three hundred years 
before the Priestly Writer, but whether in the 
Northern Kingdom or in Judah is not certain. 

We have seen that the Priestly Writer and the 
Elohist are great, each in his own way. If any 
proof of this statement is needed, it is enough to 
say that the Priestly Writer wrote the first chap- 
ter of Genesis and that the Elohist wrote the 
story of the sacrifice of Isaac. The Jehovist, of 
whom I now wish to speak, is in some respects 
quite the equal of either, and in one respect he 
is superior to both. He is more original. While 
using the old narratives freely like the Elohist, he 
knows how to extract more spiritual truth from 
them. He scarcely ever tells a story for love of 
the story itself. In telling it he makes it throw 
some light on the moral life of man. We have 
seen how little it was possible to gather from the 
writings of our other two authors in regard to 
the men themselves. They are too objective. 
The Jehovist, on the contrary, is intensely sub- 
jective. He is, I may say, a passionate writer, 
haunted by ideals. It is therefore very probable 
that in relating the old stock of traditions he 
modified them far more than did either the Elo- 
hist or the Priestly Writer, but, on the other hand, 
he h'as stamped them with the sign manual of a 
great genius. Passing through the conscience of 



(49) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the Jehovist, these old stories are freed from their 
earthly dross and become forever living symbols 
of the spiritual Hfe. Who knows how much 
virtue this man has created, or how much of our 
moral life we owe to the religious genius of him 
who for want of a better name we can only call 
the Jehovist ? 

In the Jehovist we meet for the first time with 
a profound philosophy of life. He is penetrated 
with the sense of man's sin, and he sets himself to 
discover its causes. In attempting to solve the 
problem of the origin of man's iniquity, he wrote 
those chapters of Genesis which have borne the 
greatest fruits. As I said at the beginning, these 
fruits are not all good, and yet who would carp 
at a man strong enough to bind the faith of the 
world for nearly three thousand years, and who 
has caused humanity to accept the most humil- 
iating truths in regard to itself rather than doubt 
his word? By his short story of the Temptation 
and the Fall he has produced effects incom- 
parably greater than all the Councils of the 
Church have produced. Probably the same num- 
ber of words has never created an equal result. 
The philosophy of the Jehovist is eminently 
pessimistic, and it is just this philosophy which is 
always most popular. Schopenhauer and Von 
Hartmann are read with a passionate interest 
which no one accords to Kant or Aristotle. They 
deal with matters we all can understand. They 
move our hearts, while the others only fatigue 
our intellects; but they see only part of the truth. 

The Jehovist is also the author of that terrible 
idea which it has taken millenniums to eradicate, 
namely, that God begrudges man knowledge, 

(50) 



His Pessimism 



and that man's independent efforts to elevate 
himself and to better his condition are almost in- 
sults to God, or at best sacrilegious efforts to pen- 
etrate into God's domain. Each step in the path 
of progress is a crime. All that is added to earth 
is stolen from heaven. Every onward movement 
in the development of humanity is in defiance of 
God's will. Again and again God repents of 
creating the human race.* God wished for a 
single man, who with his wife would inhabit a 
delicious garden forever. Man by his unreason- 
able thirst for knowledge disturbed this scheme. 
Accordingly he is cast out and the earth is cursed. 
The first town is built by the race of the accursed 
murderer and evildoer, Cain. God intended to 
create one human race speaking one language. 
But men made use of the power of numbers and 
cooperation to build the Tower of Babel in their 
mad attempt to scale heaven itself. Accordingly 
God scatters them over the face of the earth and 
confounds their speech. The beauty of the 
daughters of men only served to tempt celestial 
beings, ^to cause the angels to leave their first 
estate, as the Apostle Jude says, and to produce 
a monstrous race of sinners, all the thoughts of 
whose hearts were to produce evil continually. 
Accordingly God resolves to destroy the whole 
world which He made, with the sole exception of 
the righteous Noah and his family. 

In spite of the painful melancholy of these nar- 
rations, they possess a charm and teach a lesson 
that will never die. Such narratives as the Fall, 
the fratricide of Cain, and the Flood, under the 

* Several of the following sentences are quoted by memory from 
Renan. 



(51) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

simplest garb contain truths of such depth that 
we may explain away the myth as much as we 
please without affecting them in the least. Light 
shines on the face of the abyss, and yet the deep 
remains deep. 

If we look a little further into the work of the 
Jehovist we shall see that he has all the resources 
of a very great writer, — above all, power to en- 
chain the attention and to touch the conscience. 
He makes free use of tradition, and yet in this 
respect he is, like Shakespeare, grand and un- 
trammelled. He passes easily from prose to po- 
etry, as when Adam first sees his wife and ex- 
claims : 

" Bone is this of my bones 
And flesh of my flesh." 

Or in the old canticle of Noah : 

" Blessed be Jahveh, the God of Shem, 
And let Canaan be his servant. 
God enlarge Japheth, 
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem." 

Or in the splendid blessing of Jacob, which is his 
work : 

" Gather yourselves together that ye may hear what shall 
befall you in the latter days; 
Assemble yourselves and hear, ye sons of Jacob." 

Ordinarily, as Renan says, in everything per- 
taining to the relations of the sexes, to love and 
marriage, the Jehovist is " profound, sensitive, 
chaste, and mysterious." The pure and idyllic 
loves of Isaac and Rebecca, of Jacob and Rachel, 
are his creations. He has traced for us the grand 
conception of Abraham, the friend of God, and 



Compositions of Jehovist 



he has told almost the whole story of Joseph, 
in some respects the finest, the most perfect story 
of the Bible. '' How is it possible that the author 
of such masterpieces should be unknown? The 
same question is now asked of the Homeric 
poems, of nearly all the grand epics, and in short 
of all the books produced from popular tradi- 
tions. Books of this kind are of no special value 
to the first generations, well acquainted with the 
traditions they embody, and by the time the 
priceless character of the work is discovered the 
name of the author has disappeared." 

The following is the list of the principal com- 
positions of the Jehovist : 

1. The second account of creation. Cain and 
Abel. 

2. The first genealogy. The poem of Lamech 
(doubtful). 

3. The sons of God and daughters of men. 

4. The second account of the Deluge. Dis- 
covery of the vine. 

5. Table of Shemites. Tower of Babel. 

6. God's promise to Abraham. Seizure of 
Sarah by Pharaoh. 

7. The separation of Abraham and Lot. 

8. God's covenant with Abraham. Sarah and 
Hagar. 

9. Visit of the three angels. Destruction of 
Sodom. Lot's daughters.. 

10. Isaac and Rebekah. 

11. Esau's repudiation of his birthright. 
Isaac's denial of Rebekah in Gerar. Covenant 
of Abimelech and Isaac. 

12. Part of Jacob's deception of Isaac. Part 
of Jacob's dream. 



(53) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

13. Part of the story of Jacob, Rachel, and 
Leah. How Jacob outwitted Laban and ob- 
tained his flocks. 

14. Part of the story of Joseph. 

15. Jacob's blessing. 



(54) 



Genesis a Collection of Stori 



ES 



Chapter Four : 
What Is the Book of Genesis? 

WE come now to a question of importance, 
our answer to which will determine to a 
large extent our attitude toward the Book of 
Genesis : What is the Book of Genesis ? We all, 
I presume, admit that it is an inspired book, but 
what form does inspiration take in this book? 
Plainly it is not a law book, it is not poetry, it 
does not profess to be prophecy. What is it then ? 
There is one definition on which we shall all 
agree. It is a narrative, or, rather, it is a collec- 
tion of narratives. From the first chapter to the 
last it is just a series of stories. Beginning with 
the account of the Creation, through the antedi- 
luvian patriarchs to Noah, and from Abraham 
to Abraham's great-grandson Joseph, it is noth- 
ing but a collection of the most wonderful and 
fascinating stories in the world. If you wish 
proof of this, leave it to the children, who are the 
best judges of the merit of stories. Read your 
boy or girl some of the best stories of Homer, 
and then the story of the Flood or the story of 
Joseph, and see which makes the deeper impres- 
sion. 

But what is the nature of these stories? Are 
they history or are they something else? How- 
ever we shall ultimately answer this question, I 

(55) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

think we shall again all agree that the narratives 
of Genesis are very different from the history 
that is written to-day. The most casual reader 
must feel that. I pick up Green's " History of 
the EngHsh People," and the first thing I notice 
is that Green devotes as much space to the reign 
of a single king as the Book of Genesis devotes 
to the history of the world from Creation to the 
descent into Egypt. Plainly then, the two works 
are planned on a different scale. A work planned 
Hke Green's and treating of the times and the 
nations treated by the Book of Genesis would 
consist of at least a thousand volumes. The 
Book of Genesis must therefore be much con- 
densed. We look at the book and we find that 
this is so. Sometimes a nation is merely named 
and dismissed. Sometimes its whole history is 
contained in a few anecdotes of certain persons 
supposed to have founded that nation. 

That, however, is not the most striking peculi- 
arity of Genesis. As we read the compact chap- 
ters of Green, another still more important differ- 
ence presents itself to us. Everything in English 
history occurs in a perfectly natural way. The 
task which Green sets himself is simply to de- 
scribe what has happened, and to account for im- 
portant events on purely natural grounds. Such 
things as the immediate interference of God, 
immediate messages from God, prophetical 
dreams, etc., are never mentioned. And yet 
Green is very far from denying the reality 
or power of religion. On the contrary, he 
devotes much time to showing the place and 
power of the church and of religious belief. But 
he does not feel it necessary to call in the least su- 

(56) 



Supernatural in Genesis 



pernatural interference to show how England 
became what it is or what it was in any part of 
its history. It would be a mistake to suppose 
that Green is peculiar in this respect. If we take 
any other first-class work, Hke Mommsen's " His- 
tory of Rome " or Grote's '^ History of Greece," 
we shall see that it is written in exactly the same 
way so far as its attitude toward the supernatu- 
ral is concerned. We turn to Genesis, how- 
ever, and we feel the difference. There God ap- 
pears to men constantly, under one form or an- 
other. He speaks to them face to face. He 
engages in long conversations with Abraham; 
He sups with him. He makes clothes for Adam 
and Eve. He appears to Jacob in a dream. He 
curses one man and He blesses another. It is 
this element of the immediate, visible, sometimes 
tangible presence of God, and His active inter- 
ference in the affairs of men, which makes certain 
parts of the Bible, but by no means the whole 
Bible, so different from any other book in which 
we are accustomed to place confidence. If a man 
to-day were to write the history of our late war 
with Spain in the style of Genesis, it would be 
painful to<us in the highest degree, and we should 
set that writer down either as utterly deluded or 
as a daring blasphemer. 

One answer, of course, is very easy. God, it 
may be said, does not appear to men in this way 
now, and He has not actively interfered with the 
history of England as He formerly interfered 
with Noah and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. 
That answer may satisfy some minds, and those 
that are satisfied with it may remain so for a 
little while longer. But I imagine that the 



(57) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

great majority of educated persons will find it 
less easy to believe that God has changed so 
much than to believe that man's views of God 
have changed, and that what at one time seemed 
perfectly natural for God to do seems not only on 
natural grounds improbable, but on moral 
grounds impossible for God to do to-day. 

That there is nothing irreligious in this view 
is shown by the fact that most of the inspired 
men of the Old and New Testaments held it 
as firmly as we do. The Priestly Writer, the 
author of the first chapter of Genesis, was very 
careful to suppress all immediate physical mani- 
festations of the Deity such as those which 
the Jehovist delights to recount. He would 
not even mention the appearance of angels, 
and apparently he had no confidence in dreams. 
As we descend the stream of Old Testament 
tradition, we find the conception of God con- 
stantly growing purer, higher, more transcen- 
dent and more spiritual. In the time of Adam 
and Eve and at the time of Abraham, God is 
said to have showed Himself visibly in human or 
quasi-human form. But at the time of Moses, 
God was believed to appear in this way no longer. 
At most, Jehovah manifested His presence by 
some sign like the burning bush, or permitted 
Moses to stand in the cleft of the rock and see 
His hinder parts in the furious, desolating whirl- 
wind of the storm, a grand manifestation of the 
power of nature. To see God, we are told, is to 
die. We descend a little further to one of the 
earlier prophets, to Elijah, for example, and we 
find the idea of God still more transcendent and 
at the same time more awful. Elijah standing 

(58) 



Gradual Elimination of Supernatural 

upon Horeb, not far from where Moses stood, 
and seeing the same terrible phenomena of a 
mountain storm, declared that he found God 
neither in the strong wind that rent the mount 
nor in the earthquake nor in the fire, but in the 
still, small voice which we may yet hear. Lastly, 
St. John absolutely denies the reality of any of 
these physical manifestations of God by saying, 
" No man hath seen God at any time." If 
then we suppose that God in the days of old 
showed Himself so familiarly, ate, drank, and 
talked with men, we must suppose that He was 
much nearer to a man like Cain or Jacob than 
He was to a man like Isaiah or Jeremiah, who, 
far from pretending to have enjoyed any such 
visible manifestations of God, declared "Thou art 
a God that hidest Thyself." We may even rever- 
ently say, in that case God was more immediately 
visible to Cain and Jacob than He was to our 
Blessed Lord Himself. For Jesus never spoke of 
seeing God with his eyes, but by the faith of the 
heart. One of Christ's great claims on reason- 
able men is that He absolutely eschewed visions 
and dreams, and saw God only and constantly 
through the inward eye of the soul. 

These considerations will probably have weight 
with thoughtful minds. But even if you reject 
the view I put forward that it is man and not God 
who has changed, I think you will agree with me 
that in respect to its attitude toward the super- 
natural the Book of Genesis differs widely from 
history as it is written to-day. 

The third difference I notice between Genesis 
and history as it is written to-day is that Genesis 
is immediately and transparently religious, and 

(59) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

that modern history is not immediately and 
transparently religious. I do not mean to say 
that any serious and noble treatment of history 
does not contain great and saving religious 
truth ; I know the contrary from my own experi- 
ence. The more philosophical history is, the 
more religious it is. But at the same time the re- 
ligious lessons of history are not for all. They are 
not transparent. They require long search, care- 
ful sifting of characters and events, and a trained 
historical sense, and so the religious truths of 
history reach few and affect very few. But 
the charm and glory of Genesis is that its re- 
ligious lessons lie transparently on the surface, 
where they are visible to all and affect all. No 
one can mistake the lesson taught in the story of 
Cain and Abel. No one can fail to be impressed 
with the story of the Fall. We may sum this up 
by merely saying that the immediate purpose of 
Genesis is a religious purpose, and however it 
attains that purpose it attains it marvellously 
well. 

There is only one other difference I want you 
to notice between the Book of Genesis and his- 
tory as it is written to-day, but that difference is 
radical. If you pick up any really good modern 
history you will see that the first concern of the 
writer is to obtain authentic sources for what he 
wishes to write about, and by authentic sources 
I mean the writings of veracious men who lived 
at or near the time when the events occurred 
which they undertook to narrate. Where plenty 
of such contemporary documents exist, as, e.g., 
in the history of the Rebellion, history may be 
absolutely authentic. I do not say that history 



Sources of History 



ever is absolutely authentic. There is always 
the personal equation to take into account, the 
bias, prejudice, or ignorance of the historian, 
which prevents a perfect history from being writ- 
ten. But at all events the materials are at hand, 
and if the historian does not make proper use of 
them it is his own fault. It is very different when 
the contemporary records are few. Then, to 
write authentic history becomes difficult, and 
when the records fail altogether, when, for ex- 
ample, we go back to a time when no records 
were kept, and even to a time when writing was 
unknown, we leave the field of exact authentic 
history altogether and enter a field where all is 
conjectural and all but the main facts uncertain. 
Finally we reach the realm of ancient myth and 
saga, always interesting and often exceedingly 
important, but which is no longer pure history, 
but history idealized. 

This is so vital a point, not only for the 
comprehension of Genesis, but for the philo- 
sophical comprehension of all history, that I will 
not apologize for lingering over it a few minutes. 
We turn back to the earliest history of Britain 
during the last century before Christ and the first 
century of our era and we find that we possess a 
good deal of perfectly authentic information in 
regard to the island and its people. It was the 
age of the Roman invasions. In the year 55 B.C. 
the great general and historian, Julius Caesar, 
visited the island and recorded his impressions 
of it in his celebrated Commentaries. Agricola, 
the next Roman invader, was fortunate enough 
to find a first-class historian in Tacitus, who de- 
voted a volume to his deeds. So for several hun- 



(61) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

dred years we know a good deal about Britain, 
because we see it in the light of contemporary 
history, the history of the Romans. But as soon 
as we attempt to go behind the records of the 
Romans, the light fails and we find ourselves 
groping in darkness. Of Britain before the ad- 
vent of Julius Caesar we know but little. We can 
barely puzzle out the names and locations of a 
few tribes and form a general idea of the lan- 
guage and customs of the people, but anything 
like authentic, detailed history is impossible. 

And yet among all ancient nations that have 
preserved their traditions, behind their authen- 
tic detailed history is another history which is 
not authentic, in the sense that it is not a nar- 
rative of matters of fact, but which is often more 
wonderful, more instructive than history itself 
because it represents the free genius of the peo- 
ple in its creative epoch. This is the age of myth 
and saga. Perhaps I can better illustrate my 
meaning from the Greeks and Romans. 

Behind the authentic history of Rome lies a 
long period of legendary or mythical history. 
This mythical history resembles the Book of 
Genesis in one respect, it is full of the super- 
natural. Romulus and Remus are the sons of 
Mars by a human mother Rhea Silvia. When 
thrown out into the Tiber to drown they are 
rescued and brought up by a she-wolf. Having 
grown to manhood, they found together the city 
of Rome, but a quarrel arising as to whose name 
the city shall bear, Romulus kills Remus some- 
what as Cain killed Abel. We go back a little 
further to ^neas, the ancestor of Romulus, 
whose adventures are described by Virgil, and 

— 



ALUE OF IVIYTH 



M^ 



the supernatural element becomes stronger, 
^neas himself is the son of the goddess Venus, 
and his divine mother appears to him now in one 
form, now in another. Miracles and prodigies 
take place. Juno is continually plotting against 
him. She persuades ^olus, the god of the 
winds, to overwhelm him in the deep, and he is 
scarcely saved from a watery grave by the inter- 
position of Neptune. His dead father Anchises 
stands beside him in a dream at night to give him 
warning of coming dangers. He descends into 
Hades and sees there many shades of the illus- 
trious dead, etc., etc. 

It is precisely the same in Greece, except that 
in Homer's poems we see this old mythical le- 
gendary lore in all its original naivete and good 
faith, whereas Virgil lived at a time of advanced 
thought, when these myths were no longer taken 
seriously. 

Now, although we may not understand any of 
these stories literally, we should make a great 
mistake if we supposed that they form an unim- 
portant part of any literature which possesses 
them, or that they are not able to teach truths 
often profounder than the truths of history. 
What portion of Greek literature, or of any pro- 
fane hterature, is superior to Homer ? Where do 
we obtain finer, truer views of Greece than in 
these very mythical stories? What historical 
character possesses the reality of flesh and blood 
of Odysseus or Priam ? Where else do we obtain 
such an insight into the domestic, moral, re- 
ligious life of the people ? It is not only matters of 
fact that are true. Poetry also teaches truths. 
Does it detract from the parables of Jesus that 



(^3) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

not one of them, so far as we know, is based on 
fact; that is to say, on the experience of any man 
or woman who ever lived ? Would they be as per- 
fect as they are, as well able to teach a purely re- 
ligious lesson if they were limited to the mere re- 
cital of something that had actually taken place? 

Without further preface, a large part of Gen- 
esis belongs to this class of composition. As we 
have seen, it consists for the most part of nar- 
ratives which are not history as we understand 
history, and which therefore we can only call 
myth and saga. Now I am extremely anxious 
that no one should take offence at this word, as 
if we wished to evacuate Genesis of any of its 
veracity or importance. On the contrary, we 
shall see that the living, spiritual truth of the 
book shines clearer than ever, and at the same 
time we shall be relieved from the embarrass- 
ment of understanding literally those strange 
parts of the book which we find it so difficult 
to believe. Above all, we shall escape from the 
impossible task of reconciling God's govern- 
ment of the world as we know it with His gov- 
ernment of the world as it is recorded in Genesis. 

At all events, that is the fact. The narratives 
of Genesis are not history as we understand it; 
they are largely mythical, that is to say, history 
idealized. Does that in any way affect their in- 
spiration or religious value? In speaking for 
myself I can only say, not in the least ; it enhances 
their value. Or, as the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury puts it, in words which have become famous, 
" Why may not the Holy Ghost make use of 
myth? " And the true answer is, some kinds of 
myth are better adapted to impart rehgious truth 

(6^) 



How Myths Arise 



than any history. But before we quarrel with the 
word let us see what it means. 

Wherever in any literature we find ancient 
traditions, loved by the people and repeated 
for a long time before they are reduced to writ- 
ing, there we find myth. This rule is without 
an exception. Whether these narratives take the 
form of poetry or prose, their mythical character 
is unmistakable. Every nation, therefore, that 
has preserved the recollection of its own remote 
past, possesses myths, and these myths, as in the 
poems of Homer and the Vedic hymns, are often 
the grandest portion of its literature. 

Let me give you an example of the natural 
tendency toward myth-making that exists to- 
day. The history of every great man who has 
profoundly touched the heart of the people ex- 
ists in two forms. One is the form of sober his- 
tory, of painstaking, sifting, critical biography. 
The other is the form which that life takes in the 
hearts of the people, which is almost always 
grander, richer, more moving, but less true to 
fact. It is this unconscious, poetic, myth-making 
faculty which casts their halo, their crown of glory 
around certain heads. Balzac, in " The Country 
Doctor," makes an old soldier tell the story of 
Napoleon's campaigns. The story is full of 
marvels, of the impossible, but it shows the im- 
pression Napoleon made on his soldiers. In that 
respect it is truer to life than those long, crit- 
ical histories with which we are deluged to-day, 
and which with all their accuracy are untrue to 
fact simply because the man they take to pieces 
and put together could never accomplish what 
Napoleon actually did. So the Washington who 



(6s) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

exists in the hearts of patriotic Americans is a 
grander character, more harmonious, larger and 
better than any *' Real Washington." The 
writer who attempts to tear off the halo of 
glory, the noble robe with which the love of his 
countrymen has invested Washington, and to 
show us the real man, must expect to make him- 
self unpopular ; no one beHeves him. In a little 
while the facts of the book are forgotten, but the 
myth remains. We prefer to preserve our ideal 
untarnished by the touch of soiling reality. What 
makes these old traditions so perfect is that they 
are not the work of one man; they are not re- 
stricted by the limitations of one mind. A con- 
siderable portion of humanity has worked over 
them. As they pass from lip to lip and from ear 
to ear they gradually assume a perfect form, and 
it is in this final and perfect form that they are 
preserved. Their perfection and absolute natu- 
ralness they owe to the fact that they are not writ- 
ten but told. Once commit a thing to writing 
and it is fixed and dead, it cannot grow any more. 
" What I have written I have written." But the 
spoken word is alive ; it can undergo a thousand 
changes and modifications. 

There is another reason for the peculiar quality 
of these ancient stories. They are the creation 
of the childhood of every people. They repre- 
sent the world seen through childhood's eyes, a 
world of tender poetry and of perfect trust, un- 
troubled by the thought of what is possible or im- 
possible. Hence we do not see that hard and 
false distinction of natural and supernatural. 
Heaven and earth meet and blend with each 
other. 

~ (66) 



Myth Cannot be Treated as History 

It is hardly necessary for me to give further 
proof of the mythical nature of these narratives. 
The stories of Creation, of Paradise, the story 
of the Fall, of Noah's Flood, and the Tower of 
Babel, are all of this character, and what proves 
it conclusively is that several of these stories exist 
in other forms in the traditions of other nations. 
The truth does not lie in the supposed fact, but in 
the lesson that is drawn from it. If we reject the 
view I have proposed and attempt to treat the 
narratives as authentic history of matters of fact, 
we soon see that they run like quicksilver be- 
tween our fingers. Who was present at Crea- 
tion? To whom was such a revelation made? 
And if you say God exactly informed some man 
long afterward of what He did, there remains the 
double difficulty, first, that several statements of 
that account clash with what we know of Crea- 
tion, e. g., the existence of a solid firmament over 
the earth ; and secondly, that we have two inde- 
pendent accounts which contradict each other in 
many particulars. Again, on the supposition that 
this is actual history, the taunts and jeers of men 
like Ingersoll are absolutely unanswerable. One 
may very well ask whom did Cain marry, when 
Adam and Eve are represented as the only hu- 
man beings alive. Or how could one man or 
even a man and his wife build a city? Or is it 
probable that an ark of the dimensions given 
could include two specimens of all the species of 
animals and birds known to exist ? And on what 
did the carnivorous animals subsist? Or how 
can one speak of a flood rising fifteen feet above 
the peaks of the highest mountains, occurring at 
at a time when Babylon, in the valley of the 

(67) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Euphrates, and Egypt, in the valley of the Nile, 
had already reached an advanced state of civiliza- 
tion which was not affected by the Flood? It 
seems to me puerile to discuss questions of this 
sort as matters of fact any longer. 

But, on the other hand, as soon as we recog- 
nize these stories for what they are, popular 
Semitic traditions of an illimitable past, given 
an eternally true and beautiful setting by men 
truty inspired by God, we can appreciate them ; 
we can learn from them the truths of God they 
are so well able to teach us, without stultifying 
all our thought by trying to believe the impos- 
sible. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowl- 
edge of good and evil grow only on the soil of 
faith. Giants who are the offspring of the sons 
of God and the daughters of men, antediluvians 
living nine hundred years apiece, are no part of 
that humanity whose days are three score years 
and ten. We admit then at once that these are 
myths and sagas; that is to say, narratives told a 
thousand times, in the tent, beside the desert 
well, under the pleasant shade, or by the camp 
fire at night, antedating the knowledge of writ- 
ing by hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. 
They are the unconscious product of youth, so 
perfect because so unconscious, marked by all 
childhood's happy disregard of reality, and true 
in precisely the same sense in which Shakes- 
peare and Milton are true ; that is to say, true to 
nature, morally and spiritually true forever. No 
characters in the Old Testament possess more 
reality than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. 
What are the men of authentic history, like Heze- 
kiah, Jeroboam, and Ahab, beside them? Hu- 



Greatness of Mythical Characters 

manity has stamped these men with its universal 
genius, though without destroying one of their 
purely human traits. They are men still, not 
gods or demigods. They live now by virtue of 
their relations to God. All the rest is fallen 
away, hence their lives are so well adapted to 
teach us. 



(69) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Five: 

The Eternal Problem 

BEFORE discussing the story of Creation 
contained in the first chapter of the Book 
of Genesis, we must answer the question, Why is 
it that the Word of God naturally begins with the 
Creation of the world ? That this is the natural 
point of departure for the Book of the Revelation 
of God, I think we all feel. In the boldness with 
which the Book of Genesis launches itself, like an 
eagle from the mountain peak, there is the height 
of art, but it is the art of the eagle, which knows 
how to balance herself on nothing, and to throw 
her clear and powerful glance over all creation. 
All nations that are sufficiently civilized to know 
how to write, have made some effort to account 
for the beginnings of things, and, however widely 
those accounts differ from one another, they 
agree that the world as it is now is not eternal, 
but that it had a beginning. When in the course 
of time science is born, it also sets itself first of all 
the task of accounting for the beginnings of 
things. That was the case in Greece. Thales, 
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Democ- 
ritus of Abdera, Athenagoras — in short, all 
those illustrious men who laid the foundation of 
rational science — devoted their lives to the same 

(7^) 



Religion in Search for a Creator 

problems. What did the world come from, and 
how did it reach its present condition ? 

But if we look a little further we shall see that 
the motive of religion in asking this question is 
radically different from the motive of science, 
and its method of answering it is entirely unlike 
the scientific method. For religion the question, 
''Who made the world?" is altogether a practical 
and personal question. It is man's search for a 
soul to confront his soul. Who made the world ? 
Who made me ? What question that the heart of 
man can frame or his lips answer is as personal 
as this? I find myself surrounded here by that 
strange, mysterious, splendid, terrible thing 
called Nature, on which I am absolutely depend- 
ent for the air I breathe, for the food I eat and the 
water I drink. What is this Nature? Is it good, 
is it bad, or is it neither? I see at once that it is 
not a being like myself. Mother of all life, it 
seems to have no individual life of its own, at 
least none that I can grasp. Sometimes it seems to 
be kind and to love men. The sun shines, the val- 
leys stand thick with corn, the birds sing, the pa- 
tient cows are waiting to give their milk, children 
are laughing and playing, girls are gathering the 
purple grapes, men are cutting the golden corn, 
working hard, and happy in their work. Nature 
is certainly good, she cares for man. — But now it 
is winter. The sun scarcely lifts his pale face 
above the horizon. With every revolution of 
the earth the night grows blacker and the cold 
more bitter. The birds fly away to softer 
climes, and the child of man, who cannot fly, 
freezes. Round the desolate hovel the wolves 
howl at night, and one wolf in particular, named 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

hunger and desolation, whose tooth is sharpest, 
howls louder than all the rest. No help comes, no 
help will come. Nature is certainly indifferent, 
she cares nothing for man. — Again, the tempest 
arises and smites the little house. The great 
trees of the forest are sighing and bending and 
lashing each other with furious arms. The house 
falls, crushing father and mother, and leaving the 
little lambs defenceless and alone. Nature is 
evil, she hates man. 

Or again, here am I. Whence came I here? 
Through the long, long ages of the past where 
was I ? In a few years my place shall know me 
no more. Where shall I then be? Where are 
those I loved whom now I see no more? Above 
all, why am I he.re ? For what purpose was I put 
into this world without my consent? What 
ought I to do while I am here? All round me 
I see great energies capable of crushing me. 
Whose are they, and what are they? Are they 
good or are they evil? Are they many, as my 
eye tells me, or are they one, as my heart some- 
times tells me? Is there anywhere One who 
loves me ? Is there a law, obeying which, I shall 
be blessed here and hereafter ? If so, how shall 
I find that One and obey that law? 

These, I take it, are questions men have asked 
themselves from the beginning. Until they are 
answered, and to some extent correctly an- 
swered, life remains a mere nightmare, a terror to 
the conscience. The universe presses on us be- 
neficently or menacingly. It demands of us some 
grand affirmation of faith, and will not leave us 
in peace until our souls are united to it in love 
and trust. Some answer to these questions we 

(7^) 



Evils of False Religious Views 

must give. But it makes a difference what form 
of religious faith we have in regard to this su- 
preme challenge, Who is the maker and master 
of this world? As a man thinks in his heart, so 
is he. Every god, no matter how base and blood- 
stained and cruel and immoral he may be, is real 
to those who believe in him. Those persons who 
have any conception of the blighting misery that 
evil reHgions have inflicted on their votaries will 
understand this. It would hardly be an exaggera- 
tion to say that all the sorrows and hardships and 
sufferings that dog the life of man are insignifi- 
cant in comparison with the terrors of conscience, 
the fear of the unknown, the self-inflicted tor- 
tures man has endured in his endeavor to serve 
and placate a bad god who is supposed to take 
pleasure in human suffering. 

If we were to attempt to recapitulate all the 
answers the various religions of the world have 
returned to this supreme question, we should 
never have done. No answer that can be framed 
J : so dreadful or so absurd that someone has not 
sacrificed his life and happiness to it. No altar 
is so bloody, no swarm of devils so numerous or 
so obscene that some men have not offered their 
dearest and best on that altar and fallen down 
before those devils in reverence and awe. But 
so far as religion is concerned, only one of those 
answers is true. By whatever means we come 
to it, or however we may differ as to the par- 
ticulars, for religion the sole correct answer to 
the problem of Creation is this: There is One 
God, one supreme Master of life, whom Nature 
did not make, but who made Nature. To Him 
we all belong. This Supreme Being is good, and 

(73) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

He made everything not only good of its kind, 
but with a good intention, for a good purpose. 
As the end and goal of Creation on this earth He 
made man, and made him in His own image. By 
this we do not mean that God possesses bodily 
form. If He possesses a body, it is no less a body 
than the infinite universe. The image in which 
God created man is the image of His spiritual 
nature. Hence man, like God, is to a certain ex- 
tent a creator. He is not incapable of following 
the working of God's mind,"^ he can employ the 
forces of God. But far more important is the 
fact that, unlike all other animals, he feels his re- 
lation to God. He loves God and strives to imi- 
tate God in his life. 

It is the glory of Genesis that every one of 
these essential truths is set forth in language of 
unequalled simplicity and sublimity. When we 
turn from our Book to the creation-myths of 
even the most enlightened nations and read of 
gods cutting ofif their own heads and mingling 
blood with clay, of the marriage of gods and god- 
desses, of the death of gods and the birth of gods, 
and all those fantastic legends which seem to 
us too ridiculous ever to have been credited, we 
feel that we are face to face with aberrations of 
the human mind dangerously like lunacy, with 
which we cannot associate our religious life for a 
moment. They can tell us nothing about God. 
Better no god than that swarm of fantastic ab- 
surdities. We turn from them to the calm sanity, 
the dignity, the justice, of Genesis, and we feel at 
once that these are our own ideas, only expressed 
better than we can express them. However the 

* Evidenced by Mathematics, Mechanics, Physics, etc. 

— 



The Longing for Peace 



authcr came by his astonishing statement of fact, 
he reveals God to us. He places God, Nature, 
and man in their proper relations. Therein we 
find the true inspiration of Genesis. 

Up to this time we. have been considering the 
problem of Creation in its religious aspect only. 
That, to be sure, comes first in point of time, and 
is most important. But it is not the only aspect 
of the problem ; there is also the scientific aspect. 
If the heart requires reassurance, consolation and 
faith, the intellect requires knowledge. These 
two ways of approaching the study of Creation 
are quite distinct. The motives are different, the 
methods are different, and the results are differ- 
ent. And yet, after all, every man has only one 
soul, and that soul has no watertight bulkheads. 
Sooner or later, all that we have taken into our 
soul mingles, and the mind is constantly striving 
to create peace and harmony between its faith 
and its knowledge. Some men never attain this 
peace. Strange as it sounds, they believe one 
thing and know the contrary to be true. But 
that is an unhappy and unnecessary condition of 
mind, and one in which, in the long run, faith will 
lose and scepticism, if not hypocrisy, will prevail. 

This, then, I assume as an axiom. The relig- 
ious and the scientific attitudes of mind toward 
Creation and toward Nature generally, though 
very different, are both legitimate; and while 
perfect reconciliation between them is impossible, 
since one is constantly changing, yet they will 
finally be reconciled. Meanwhile it is possible 
for us to be sincerely religious and at the same 
time to be faithful disciples of science. I have no 
doubt that this principle will be attacked on both 



(75) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

sides. On one side there are a great many re- 
ligious men who regard the problem of Creation 
exclusively as a religious problem, a mere matter 
of faith and divine revelation ; and, on the other 
hand, there are a few men who deny all revelation 
and faith, and who admire science chiefly because 
they see in it a weapon capable, as they think, of 
destroying religion. Epicurus, one of the great- 
est physicists of antiquity, was candid enough to 
say, " If the thought of the gods and of death 
were not injuring us, we should have no need to 
study Nature." But to both these objections it 
is enough to say that neither science nor even re- 
ligion alone is able to satisfy the whole man. As 
long as man remains man, one of his chief pleas- 
ures will be to think. But, on the other hand, 
man is not a mere thinking machine, an instru- 
ment a little more complicated than those adding 
machines used in banks or the so-called chess 
automata we see in museums. Man, in addi- 
tion to his mind, has also a soul. He has a 
beautiful, moving, pathetic life, a life which daily 
demands of him right feeling, right action. His 
relations with his fellow-men are emotional and 
affectionate, not merely calculating. He is great 
enough to perceive the littleness of what can 
legitimately be called science, in comparison with 
the needs of his soul. Looked at from any point 
of view, it is character rather than intellect that 
has made man great in the past, and to-day 
man is developing in spirituality and religious- 
ness far more rapidly than he is developing 
in intellectual capacity. Francis Galton says 
that in point of intellect we are now as far be- 
low the Athenians of the age of Pericles as the 

(76) 



Man Forever a Religious Being 

African negroes are below us. But in all that 
pertains to the religious and moral life we are 
almost as much above them. I think, there- 
fore, as Renan somewhere says, that those per- 
sons who, in dreaming of a perfect humanity, rep- 
resent it to themselves as a humanity without re- 
ligion, are entirely wrong. The very reverse is 
what they ought to say. The Chinese are a peo- 
ple almost without religion, and they are the least 
spiritual and most commonplace people in the 
world. The religious faculty develops so rap- 
idly with the development of our other powers, 
that a humanity twice as wise and as strong as 
ours would be more than twice as religious. A 
humanity five times, ten times as great as ours, 
might be altogether religious. 

Returning to our subject, the interest of reli- 
gion in Creation is very practical. It is a matter 
of the heart and life. We want to know who 
made this world and who made us, that we may 
know what our life ought to be and whom we 
ought to serve and obey. All that we need to 
know on that subject, so far as our religious 
life is concerned, is contained in the first chap- 
ter of Genesis and in a few simple sayings of 
Jesus in the Gospel. Now, the impulses that 
move science to trace things back to their begin- 
nings are of a totally different order. To reli- 
gion, the whole matter is summed up in one brief 
statement of the Nicene Creed, " I beheve in 
One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven 
and Earth and of all things visible and invisible," 
but you may be very sure that the Nicene Creed 
does not figure in works of cosmic science. Such 
a statement means nothing at all to science, if for 

(77) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

no other reason, because it is an act of faith, 
whereas science is concerned exclusively with 
knowledge. Science does not profess to be able 
to say with confidence who made the world, and 
though the vast majority of the greatest men of 
science beUeve in God as we do, yet with them, 
as with us, it is a matter of faith and nothing else. 
The very idea of creation out of nothing is re- 
pugnant to science. It contradicts its funda- 
mental axioms that matter is indestructible and 
was always and will be always the same in 
amount, and that energy can be transformed, but 
neither increased nor diminished. When science 
attempts to account for the present condition of 
the universe it proceeds in a totally different way 
from the way of religion. It does not consult the 
needs of its own heart, for it has no heart. It 
does not content itself with the general impres- 
sion of order and harmony and wonder which the 
universe makes on our minds. It cannot sum up 
the results of its elaborate investigations in a few 
sublime sentences. To say God made the world 
and made it well is to say a thing that science can 
neither prove nor disprove. It is an assertion be- 
fore which science stands absolutely helpless, and 
which will not help it, except indirectly, one step 
on its way. Science, well aware of its own limi- 
tations, does not attempt to ask that question 
at all. It does not even seek to explain how 
anything came into existence, because that too 
is veiled forever from all human knowledge. It 
is impossible for us to imagine how any non- 
existent thing acquired existence. The real prob- 
lems of science are of a totally different order. 
Its task is discharged by logical reasoning, or on 

(78) 



Spirit And Mechanics 



the humble but safe and sure path of empirical 
observation. Much of the impatience which re- 
ligious men have felt with the negations of sci- 
ence they have felt on account of their ignorance 
of the necessary limitations of science. Kant said 
long ago, that science exists only so far as it can 
prove its statements by mathematics. Du Bois- 
Reymond, while not altogether denying Kant's 
assertion, wishes to substitute for the word math- 
ematics the word mechanics. He insists that the 
whole problem of natural science is to account for 
events by mechanical causes. Now, to attempt 
by mechanics to find God, who is a Spirit if He 
is anything, is almost as stupid as Lalande's at- 
tempt to see God through his telescope. Or, 
rather, it is exactly like seeking the soul of our 
friend through the mechanism of the brain. We 
find something, but what we find is the mechan- 
ical reaction, which can be measured, not intelli- 
gence and love. As long as science sticks to its 
business it cannot help being mechanical, and 
when it becomes devout and appreciative, when 
it attempts to translate purely mechanical forces 
into love, purpose, and intelligence, it ceases to 
be scientific and becomes religious. Knowledge, 
although it does not cease, becomes fused with 
faith. 

The Book of Genesis, as we have said, ap- 
proaches the study of Creation solely from the 
side of religion. Its purpose is to show the world 
in its relation to God, not to give us a scientific 
account of the origin of the world by mechanical 
causes. It is tVue, as every one knows, that a cer- 
tain number of pseudo-scientific statements have 
slipped into the Book of Genesis, but they were 



(79) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

not the original ideas of the authors of Genesis; 
they were only very ancient traditions which the 
authors of Genesis accepted with the rest of the 
world of their day. 

Let us look at some of these statements. God 
is said to have created light on the first day, long 
before the creation of the sun, moon and stars. 
Apparently that is a contradiction — and it is a con- 
tradiction.'^ Some persons have tried to explain 
this away by saying that the writer had the neb- 
ular hypothesis in mind, and that, before sun, 
moon and stars were formed, while they were 
still whirling masses of attenuated vapor, they 
emitted light. But no real student of the Bible 
would entertain that idea for a moment. No 
writer of the Bible, no writer for ages after the 
Bible was written — so far as I know, no one be- 
fore Kant and Laplace — had any idea of the neb- 
ular hypothesis; and besides, at the time when the 
moon was a whirling mass of nebulous matter, 
the earth was in the same condition, and no life, 
of course, was possible. The author of the first 
chapter of Genesis plainly conceived of light and 
darkness as separate objects. When the light 
came forth it was day. When the light withdrew 
into its home behind the firmament and the dark- 
ness came forth, it was night. He did not believe 
that all the light that exists comes from the sun, 
the moon and the stars, or he would not have rep- 
resented the light as created on the first day and 
the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. And 
yet, as we shall see hereafter, this is not so much 
a scientific error as the bondage* of the writer 

* Physiologically, light first existed when there was a seeing eye 
to perceive it. 

(So) 



The Firmament 



to an old mythical tradition, which, though 
he softened, he did not wish to omit entirely. 
In its older form light and darkness, which 
have here paled to mere abstractions, were two 
deities. 

Another strange conception is that of the 
firmament. Scientific writers, for the most part, 
have let this pass, because, not being Hebrew 
scholars, they did not very well understand what 
the author meant by the expression. Our Eng- 
lish Bible translates it correctly '' firmament," 
i.e., something solid and firm. The Hebrew 
word Rakia means something beaten out, Hke a 
thin plate of metal, and this is the way it was 
conceived both by the Hebrews and Babylonians 
and by other ancient peoples. How did any 
thoughtful people come by such a strange idea ? 
It is not difficult to see. In the first place, there 
are the sun, moon and stars moving across the 
sky, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible. 
What supports them ? There must be some firm 
and solid substance in which they are set or they 
would certainly fall to the earth. This substance 
is also opaque, or else we should see them all the 
time. When sun, moon and stars have accom- 
plished their journey and have lighted the earth 
for their allotted time, they slip behind the firma- 
ment and make their way back to the old starting 
point. That is the way people reasoned, and it is 
not bad reasoning either, only all the premises are 
false. Then again it sometimes rains and some- 
times snows. Where do rain and hail and snow 
come from ? To persons totally ignorant of the 
processes of evaporation and condensation only 
one answer was likely to suggest itself. In addi- 



(8i) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

tion to the earthly waters of lake and sea and 
river, God has heavenly reservoirs, from which 
He sometimes sends down rain and hail and 
snow. Why do they not fall all at once and 
drown us? It is because they are restrained and 
kept in their place by the same solid firmament 
that holds the sun, moon and stars. '' And God 
made the firmament, and divided the waters 
which were under the firmament from the waters 
which were above the firmament, and it was so." 
But if this is the case, how do the rain and hail 
and snow get out ? The answer is not difficult. 
The firmament has windows which God occasion- 
ally opens. How often have you read in the Bible, 
" I will open the windows of Heaven," but did 
you ever think what it meant? When God 
wished to drown the earth in the Flood, he opened 
the windows of Heaven. There is another way 
also by which that end was accomplished. The 
fountains of the great abyss were broken up. But 
that idea is so strange and so important that I 
shall not speak of it now, but shall reserve it for a 
time when I can do justice to it. 

There are two other statements of the first 
chapter of Genesis with which modern science 
has come sharply into conflict. If we persist in 
regarding Genesis as a literal statement of mat- 
ters of fact, it constantly presents to us insuper- 
able difficulties, and we are driven to the miser- 
able expedient of either rejecting this noble and 
inspired book bodily, or of abandoning all sane 
and real science of Nature. Let us do neither 
the one nor the other. The two conceptions re- 
ferred to now are the order of Creation and the 
time required for Creation. 



The Order of Creation 



I. The order of Creation as laid down in the 
first chapter of Genesis is not, so far as we know, 
Hterally and scientificahy correct, because it rep- 
resents the earth as created and even as clothed 
with vegetable Hfe before the creation of the sun. 
According to all sound scientific theory, the sun, 
the centre of the system to which the earth be- 
longs, came into being first, while the earth is 
believed to have been thrown off from the cool- 
ing, contracting sun as a nebulous ring. But 
whether the nebular hypothesis is true or false 
(for, after all, it is a mere theory, and, as such, 
may be abandoned at any time), it is certain that 
neither fruit-tree, nor herb, nor grass ever grew 
on this earth without sunlight. And yet the 
thought of our writer from his point of view is 
not so absurd as it may seem. To him this earth 
was the centre of the universe. Far from imagin- 
ing the relative size and importance of the sun, to 
him the sun was a comparatively Httle thing. It 
was not even the source of all the light that falls 
on the earth. Its first function was to serve as a 
basis for the calendar, to preside over the des- 
tinies of men, with the moon to be for signs and 
seasons, days and years, and to rule the day hke 
a little king. From a scientific point of view that 
is all wrong, but from the religious point of view, 
which is interested exclusively in showing how 
God prepared the earth for human habitation, it 
is more than half right. 

So again, in regard to the order of plant life. 
The order of Genesis is, first, plant life, then fish 
and birds, then cattle and other mammals, rep- 
tiles and insect life, and lastly man. In spite of 
minor difficulties, this list is amazingly correct. 



(83) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

It is certainly interesting that our author asso- 
ciates birds and all flying things with fish and 
places them before mammals, which is just where 
evolutionary science would place them. Rep- 
tiles, however, are introduced too late. It is 
true Professor Huxley entered a long and, it 
seems to me, rather futile controversy * to prove 
that we do not know that plants were cre- 
ated before low forms of animal life. But, 
logically, it would appear that they were cre- 
ated first, because plants can derive their nour- 
ishment directly from inorganic matter, whereas 
animals can only digest organic matter, that is 
to say, either plants or other animals. Sup- 
pose two animals were created before plants. 
What could they live on ? A first meal, of course, 
would be at hand. One would eat the other. But 
where would the second meal come from ? I do 
not see that the case would be different if, in- 
stead of two animals, two hundred or two thou- 
sand were brought forth at the same time. The 
more there were, the more mouths to feed. So, 
again, the author has certainly introduced man 
with wonderful skill and in the right place. He 
is not so much the centre of creation, as the end 
and goal of life on this earth, to which every other 
form of life is subordinate. 

2. The statements of Genesis in regard to 
the time consumed in Creation and the time 
which has elapsed since are considered by most 
persons the most glaring discrepancies of all. 
Those who know little or nothing about the other 
controversies waged in the name of this book 

* " The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of 
Nature," and " Mr. Gladstone and Genesis." 

(8^0 



The Old Controversy with Geology 

are aware of the controversy of the six days 
and the six thousand years, which for more than 
a century blocked the path of geology and stood 
in the way of a rational science of the earth. Give 
us time, said the geologists, and we will account 
for everything on purely natural principles. But 
time was just what the theologians refused to 
give. Perhaps they did not care to see every- 
thing explained on purely natural principles. 
But, as usual, the Book of Genesis was made to 
bear the brunt of the battle. For a long time the 
six days of Genesis were raised as a fatal objec- 
tion to every explanation of the earth which re- 
quired the lapse of immense periods of time, and 
even after the six days were no longer taken lit- 
erally it was thought necessary to maintain that 
the world was created barely four thousand years 
before Christ. 

At present this controversy is not material, but 
I should like you to see the real position of Gene- 
sis on the subject. I admit without hesitation that 
the six days of Creation are conceived in Genesis 
as ordinary days of twenty-four hours. Each day 
begins with morning and concludes with even- 
ing, and what makes this more certain is that 
the seventh day is identified with the Jewish 
Sabbath. The commandment to keep holy the 
Sabbath day, which has been recited by Jews 
and Christians alike for thousands of years, and 
which we still recite, is based on the assertion 
that on this day God rested after the labor of 
Creation. 

But, on the other hand, we ought to remember 
that the only reason why geology requires so 
much time is because it attempts to explain the 

(8s) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

creation of the earth mechanically, i.e., scientifi- 
cally, by natural causes. Geologists have no 
special love or reverence for time itself. They 
would be glad enough to shorten the time to 
please us if they could do so. The only reason 
why they want so much time is that they do not 
see how the world could have reached its present 
condition by mechanical causes in a shorter time. 
Here we see a striking example of the absolute 
difference between the scientific and the religious 
method. The author of Genesis has nothing to 
say about mechanical causes. Had he wished to 
describe how the world was made by natural 
agencies, he would probably have asked as much 
time as any one. There is another fact which, so 
far as I know, nobody has noticed. The Priestly 
Writer, who knew the science of Babylon so well, 
had before his eyes a Babylonian account of 
Creation which allowed long periods of time to 
elapse between its several acts, and this account 
our writer frequently uses. But in this instance 
he rejects it and substitutes his six days, because 
he is not describing creation by natural causes, 
but, to use Dillmann's expression, '' creation by 
the word of God," for whom time does not 
exist. 

I know perfectly well that this is not scientific, 
it is not even true to fact. But it is religiously 
true to those who believe that God is the Maker 
of this world. It is part of that simple and ideal- 
istic system of imparting truth under the form of 
myth which distinguishes all this great Book of 
ours. The thought underlying the system is a 
true one. It would not make the account of 
Creation a whit more impressive if our writer had 

(86) 



The Six Days 



copied the extravagant figures of the Babylonian 
or Indian cosmogonies in place of his own six 
days. In my opinion the brilliancy of the picture 
would be dimmed by so much diffusion. The 
error lies with those who attempt to interpret 
materially and scientifically what was intended 
religiously and ideally. 



(87) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Six: 
^he Creation Story 

WE have been a long time In reaching the 
first chapter of Genesis, but in our more 
general and comprehensive survey of the book 
we have learned much that we could not have got 
at so easily in any other way. However, we have 
had enough by way of introduction. The method 
I now propose to follow is to give, as far as 
possible, a correct, literal translation of the first 
chapter of Genesis and an explanation of its 
wonderful verses just sufficient to enable us to 
know what they mean to tell us, and then to go 
back and consider in detail the problems with 
which this chapter abounds. 

Every Hebrew scholar must remember the 
feeling of awe and admiration he experienced 
when he first spelled out these majestic words 
and then read them over and over until their 
flow and rhythm were impressed upon his mem- 
ory forever. Even in English much of the 
charm of these sentences is preserved. In their 
monotonous repetitions and their sure advance 
they seem to run parallel to the very processes 
of creation they describe; but in Hebrew, the 
noble melody and collocation of sounds, and the 
sustained energy of thought, reach a perfection 

(8^ 



The First Creation Story 



of expression beyond which the art of words can- 
not go : 

^'B'reshith bara Elohim eth hasshamayim v'eth 
haarez. V'haarez hayatha thohu v'vohu, v'cho- 
shek al pne th'hom. V'ruach Elohim m'rach- 
epheth al p'ne hammayim. Vayyomer Elohim 
y'hi or, vayy'hi or. Vayyar Elohim eth haor ki 
tov, etc." 

1. In the beginning [or, in the very beginning] Elo- 
him created the heavens and the earth. [Or, In the be- 
ginning when Elohim created the heavens and the earth.] 

2. And the earth was a waste and an empty chaos, and 
darkness was on the face of the abyss,i and the Spirit of 
God was brooding [tenderly] on the waters. 2 

3. And Elohim said, " Let light be," and light was. 

4. And Elohim saw the light that it was good, and 
Elohim separated the light from the darkness. 

5. And Elohim called the light day, and the darkness 
called He night, and it became evening and it became 
morning, one day [or, a first day]. 

6. And Elohim said, " Let there be a firmament between 
the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 

7. And Elohim made the firmament, and separated the 
waters that are beneath from those that are above the 
firmament. 

8. And Elohim named the firmament Heaven; and there 
was evening and there was morning, a second day. 

9. And Elohim said, " Let the waters which are beneath 
the Heaven gather together into one place and let the 
dry [land] appear." And it was so. 

1 The author carefully refrains from saying that God 
created either darkness or chaos. The preexistence of 
both is tacitly assumed. What God created is cosmos and 
light. The conception of chaos in all genuinely ancient 
cosmogonies is the great poetical datum from which the 
narratives proceed. 

2 The brooding Spirit as a creative principle with Its 
Implication of gradual self-development, as Wellhausen 
pointed out, is quite distinct from the creative word of 
which the remainder of this chapter speaks. The merging 
of these two conceptions indicates that this cosmogony is 
composite, and that it was derived from more than one 
source. 



(89) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



10. And Elohim named the dry land earth, and He 
named the gathering of the waters seas. And Elohim saw 
that it was good. 

11. And Klohim said, " Let the earth produce the green 
blade, the herb which yields seed, fruit trees which bring 
forth fruit after their kind in which their seed is contained 
upon the earth." And it was so.^ 

12. And the earth brought forth the green blade, the 
herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree bearing fruit 
which has its seeds in itself after its kind. And Elohim 
saw that it was good. 

13. And there was evening and there was morning, a 
third day. 

14. And Elohim said, " Let luminaries come into exist- 
ence in the firmament of Heaven to divide the day from 
the night, and let them be for signs, for [reckoning] the 
fixed times, and for [numbering] the days and the years. 

15. " And let them be for lights in the firmament of 
Heaven to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 

16. And Elohim made the two great luminaries, the 
greater luminary to rule over the day, the lesser luminary 
to rule over the night, and also the stars. 2 

17. 18. And Elohim set them in the firmament of Heaven 
to give light upon the earth, and to rule over day and night 
and to divide the light from dimness. And Elohim saw 
that it was good. 

19. And there was evening and there was morning, a 
fourth day. 

20. And Elohim said, " Let the waters swarm with a 
swarm of living beings, and let fowls fly over the earth in 



^ It will be noticed that God does not " make " plant 
and tree. The earth itself at God's command is deemed 
sufficient for their production. The evolutionary idea of 
the development of the organic from the inorganic is found 
here. This thought would be naturally suggested by the 
new life of each succeeding springtide. 

2 The functions assigned to the luminaries which are to 
serve as signs, as the basis of the calendar, and as rulers of 
the day and night, are among the most antique concep- 
tions of this chapter. In the recognition of the stars as 
" signs," we discern the ancient science of astrology. The 
conception of the sun and moon as '' rulers " of day and 
night hardly grew on the soil of Israel's revealed religion. 
It is rather, as Gunkel says, the faint echo of an earlier 
adoration of the heavenly bodies, against which Job warns 



(90) 



Creation of Animals and Man 



the face of the firmament of Heaven." [Or, " on the front 
side of the firmament," the side turned towards us.] 

21. And Elohim created great sea monsters and all the 
living, moving things with which the waters swarm, and 
also all winged fowl after their kind. And Elohim saw that 
it was good. 

22, 23. And Elohim blessed them, saying, " Be fruitful 
and multiply and fill the waters of the sea, and let the fowl 
multiply on the land." And there was evening and there 
was morning, a fifth day. 

24. And Elohim said, " Let the earth bring forth living 
beings after their kinds, the cattle, the reptiles, and the wild 
beasts after their kinds." And it was so. 

25. And Elohim made the wild beasts after their kinds, 
the cattle after their kind, and every reptile [literally, creep- 
ing things] of the ground after its kind. And Elohim saw 
that it was good. 

26. And Elohim said, " Let us make man in our image,i 
according to our likeness, and let him have dominion over 
the fishes of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cat- 
tle and over all the earth, and over every reptile that creeps 
upon the earth." 

27. And Elohim created man in His image, in the image 
of Elohim He created him,^ male and female created He 
them. 



1 This expression far exceeds the limits of the so-called 
plural of majesty or excellence, and points "to a plurality 
of divine beings whose assistance was required in this chef- 
d'oeuvre, or at least to other Elohim in the service of the 
Creator, as the Targum and Philo admit. Two other ex- 
pressions in the early chapters of Genesis — " the man has 
become like one of us," and " Go to, let us go down " — 
certainly exceed the limits of strict monotheism. These 
conceptions could have arisen only in very early times, 
and as nothing in the present narrative warrants such ex- 
pressions, in each instance we must assume that something 
(the assembly of heavenly beings) has fallen from the text. 
Job also (chapter xxxviii. 7), in his account of creation, 
represents the morning stars as singing together, and the 
sons of Elohim as shouting for joy. 

- What that image of God is in which man was created 
the Book of Genesis does not attempt to determine. We 
prefer to think of the image of God's spiritual nature, and 
in the absence of definite indication to the contrary, we 
have the right to conceive of it thus. From other expres- 
sions of Genesis, however — e. g., that Adam begot a son 

(90 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



28. And Elohim blessed them, and said to them, " Be 
fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Have do- 
minion over the fishes of the sea, over the fowl of the air 
and over every living being that moves over the earth." 

29. And Elohim said, " Behold, I give you every plant 
bearing seed that is upon the surface of all the earth, and 
every tree that has a fruit producing seed. That shall be 
food for you, 

30. "And to every animal of the ground and to every fowl 
of the air and to every reptile on the earth having in itself 
a breath of Hfe, I give all green herbs for food." And it 
was so. 

31. And Elohim saw all that He had made, and lo! it was 
very good. And there was evening and there was morn- 
ing, a sixth day. 

Chapter II. : 

1. So the heavens and the earth were finished and all 
their host. 

2. And Elohim finished on the seventh day His work 
which He had made. [A difficulty. We should either ex- 
pect " finished on the sixth day," or else we must under- 
stand " had done with on the seventh day."] And on the 
seventh day He rested from all His work which He had 
made.i 

3. And Elohim blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, 
because on this day He rested from all His work which 
He had created and made. 

4. This is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth 
when they were created. 



in his own image, and that the shedding of human blood 
is an injury to the image of God — it would appear that 
" the image of God " was not originally understood in an 
exclusively spiritual sense. 

1 The six days of creative activity and the Sabbath of 
rest occur in no other ancient cosmogony. This concep- 
tion, therefore, appears to be a late and an exclusively 
Hebraic belief. Elohim's inspection of each day's work to 
see if it be good, with the implied possibility of failure, 
is very naive. The Zoroastrian cosmogony also divides 
creation into six acts, not only in the Bundahesh, but also 
in the Zend Avesta (Visparad vii. 4; Yasna xix. 2, 4, and 8). 
The Zoroastrian order is sky, water, earth, cattle, plants, 



(92) 



Influence of Ancient Tradition 

There, in plain English, is an approximately 
correct translation of the first account of Crea- 
tion, about which so many books have been writ- 
ten. What can we make of it? Those who have 
followed the discussion thus far will know, at least 
in a general way, what to expect. In the first 
place, this story is not the original production of 
the Priestly Writer of this first chapter of Gene- 
sis. It contains the remains of many old tradi- 
tions, which we shall have Httle difficulty in dis- 
covering and separating. Secondly, I believe that 
those traditions were not borrowed wholesale at a 
late date, e. g., from the Babylonians and the Per- 
sians at the time of the Exile, but that, on tlie con- 
trary, they may even be part of a primitive Sem- 
itic inheritance as old as the people themselves. 
Thirdly, those traditions, before they reached us, 
have passed through the soul of a truly inspired 
man, in consequence of which they differ abso- 
lutely from all similar attempts to describe Crea- 
tion. We shall find many resemblances with 
other literatures, but the difference is always 
sharper and deeper than the resemblance. 

The two features which distinguish this ac- 
count of Genesis from all similar accounts what- 
ever, are the conception of God and the concep- 
tion of man. In the first place, God is anterior 
to Creation and there is none beside Him. Elo- 
him has no father, no mother, no wife. The fe- 
male principle, the distinction of sex, source of 
endless immoralities to almost every other an- 
cient religion, is not exactly suppressed : it does 
not exist. There is not the slightest trace of it. 
How does this happen? Matthew Arnold tried 
to explain it by saying that the Jews had a talent 

(93) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

for morality, just as Renan thinks they had a 
genius for monotheism ! Where did they get that 
talent, and how does it happen that when such tal- 
ents were being distributed other nations did not 
come in for their share ? The writers of Genesis 
certainly did not get their pure views of God 
from the society they depict, which is polygamous 
to the core, and which they describe apparently 
without a suspicion that polygamy is an evil 
thing. When I see plainly that the God of this 
chapter is a peculiar being, pure and good and 
wise and one, as God must be, I prefer to believe 
that the man who drew this picture of Him was 
peculiarly inspired in this sense : he had a concep- 
tion of God which other men of his day did not 
possess, and which, after all these years of prog- 
ress, our hearts tell us is true. 

*' In the beginning God created." There is 
something wonderful in that bold statement of 
fact. Other accounts of Creation become a sort 
of family history of the gods. One god with his 
wife begets another. Or it is the world that 
makes God, not God that makes the world, and 
so, at last, there results a hopeless jumble of 
worlds, gods and demigods, gradually tapering 
down to men. In Genesis the distinctions are 
drawn with absolute clearness. There is noth- 
ing magical about Nature. It is just the plain 
everyday world we know. When man appears, 
he appears as a man, not as some mythical mon- 
ster with whom we have no kith or kin. Ex- 
cept that Adam and Noah and Abraham lived 
longer than we live, and were built on a larger 
scale, they were human beings exactly like us. In 
order to make this plainer, it will now be almost 



Hindu Creation Story 



necessary for me to set before you briefly other 
accounts of Creation as they were handed down 
by the great civilized nations of antiquity. I will 
begin with India. 

The Hindu account of Creation is contained in 
the Law Book of Manu. It is talented, but too 
prolix, so that I shall give only the most impor- 
tant features of it. The ancient sages are repre- 
sented as coming to Manu, who himself is con-, 
ceived as a god, and asking him to explain to 
them the origin of all things. And Manu says : 

Listen: This universe existed in the shape of darkness 
unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable 
by reason, . . . wholly immersed, as it were in deep 
sleep. 

Then the divine, self-existent One, indiscernible himself, 
but making all the great elements discernible, appeared 
with irresistible power, dispelling the darkness. 

He, desiring to produce many beings from his own body 
[here the mischief begins] first with a thought created the 
waters and placed his seed m them. That seed became a 
golden egg, in brilliancy like the sun. In that egg, he 
himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole 
world. [Already God has become part of Nature.] 

The divine One resided in that egg during a whole year. 
Then, by his thought alone, he divided it into two halves. 
And out of these two halves he made heaven and earth. 



Then he goes on to create a long list of mental 
qualities, gods, demons, and other mythical be- 
ings. Then he divides himself and becomes 
half male, half female; and from that union a 
certain Virag is born, who, in turn, becomes a 
creator. In all this the religious element simply 
melts away. One creator passes Into another so 
rapidly that it is hard to say who created any- 
thing. In other words, God is swamped in the 
processes of Nature. There are two points, how- 



(95) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

ever, to be remembered. Nature begins with 
chaos, and the world is developed out of an egg. 

According to the Greek doctrine represented 
by Hesiod, first of all was Chaos, then Gaea 
(earth), Tartarus (the bottomless abyss), and 
Eros (love), the active, uniting principle. Out of 
chaos came Erebus (primeval darkness), and 
Nyx (night). Their children are Sleep, Death, 
Dreams, Deceit, Old Age, etc. On the other 
hand, the Earth of herself first brought forth 
Uranos (the starry heavens), and Pontus (the 
salt depths of the sea), and then, with Uranos as 
her husband, the ocean that surrounds the world. 
Then the story passes into the genealogy of the 
gods, who are conceived as the product of Na- 
ture. 

I notice three things. First, that everything 
here begins with chaos; secondly, that the gods 
were not considered equal to the task of making 
the world — the world made them; thirdly, that 
the broad-bosomed, fertile earth is the principal 
creator. Of any really religious elements there 
is not a trace. 

The cosmogony of the Egyptians is of excep- 
tional interest to us, not only on account of its 
great age but also on account of the close rela- 
tions which existed from the earhest times be- 
tween the Egyptians and the Hebrews. Al- 
though the Biblical saying, '' Moses was learned 
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," has not the 
importance in this connection that it once had, 
yet this statement is, doubtless, a recognition of 
the fact that the two nations possessed many 
traditions in common. This has become more 
certain since the Semitic character of the Egyp- 

(96) 



Egyptian Cosmogonies 



tian civilization lias been established. Unfor- 
tunately, although we have numerous allusions 
to the creation of the world and of man in old 
Egyptian hymns and inscriptions, we find no 
one authoritative and detailed cosmogony like 
our own creation story. This, however, is only 
to be expected. The Egyptians were a poly- 
theistic people, and from the earliest times pos- 
sessed important cities in which priestly schools 
flourished; it was therefore natural that each of 
these schools should elaborate its own cosmo- 
gony, in which the local deity was praised as the 
chief creator. At Elephantine the creator was 
called Chnum (or Hnuniu), the builder or archi- 
tect. He forms man out of clay with the assist- 
ance of his wheel. The pictures represent him 
as turning the potter's wheel with his foot, form- 
ing a human figure which is usually represented 
as a child. Beside him rests the world egg of 
clay, which he has already fashioned. At Mem- 
phis, the oldest royal city of Egypt, Ptah, the 
builder, was regarded as the creator of all things. 
In particular he created the Hght god. At Her- 
mopolis it was Thoth who made the world by the 
word of his mouth, '^ speaking it into existence." 
In Thebes the honor of creation was ascribed to 
Amon, the invisible god. East of the Nile, in 
Heliopolis (Onu), the chief deity was the sun 
god Tum or Atum. He is the creator and re- 
vealer in his capacity of god of light. It was also 
said that earth and sky were two lovers clasped 
in each other's embrace and lost in primeval 
waters. In most of these cities the creator was 
regarded as a male deity, but in some of the 
priestly schools (e. g., at Sai's and Tentyra) the 



(97) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

primal fertile matter was personified as a female 
deity, Neith, Hathor, etc. Many of these ac- 
counts are couched in obscure mythological 
terms, whose meaning escapes us. The most 
important statement of creation that Brugsch 
Bey * is able to bring forward runs as follows. It 
is undoubtedly taken from genuinely ancient 
Egyptian sources, although I believe it is not 
found in a single inscription. 

In the beginning neither Heaven nor Earth existed. 
Surrounded by thick darkness, a chaos of primeval water 
[named Nun] filled everything, and concealed in its bosom 
male and female germs, the beginnings of the future world. 
The divine primal Spirit which is inseparable from the ele- 
ment of primeval water, felt a longing to create, and His 
Word awakened the world to life, whose form and whose 
objects were previously mirrored in his eye. Their physi- 
cal outlines and colors corresponded after their creation to 
the truth — that is, to the original thought of the divine 
Spirit in regard to his future work. The first creative act 
began with the formation of an egg, out of which broke 
forth primeval waters, out of which broke forth the light 
of day (Ra), the immediate cause (ra) of life on earth. In 
the rising sun the almightiness of the divine soul em- 
bodied itself in its most splendid form. 

This brief statement may be regarded as the 
norm of all ancient Egyptian cosmogonies. The 
world begins with a dark, fruitful, watery chaos, 
in which the germs of all things are con- 
tained. Whether this preexisting substance 
be called Nun, Ptah, Thoth, or Hnumu, the 
idea remains the same. But this chaos, in- 
stead of being a hostile element which resists 
the creator, is in closest union with the divine 
Spirit. In Egypt the sharp dualism of Babylo- 
nian speculation is transformed into an unresist- 

* " Religion und Mythologie," p. loi. 

_ 



Egyptian Creation Hymn 



iiig evolution of chaos into cosmos. The first 
step of this process, as in Genesis, is the breaking 
forth of Hght. In fact, the account of creation 
is plainly modelled on the phenomenon of the 
breaking of the new day. As the sun rises out 
of the dark waters and thick clouds, and having 
risen reveals the world, so the world itself origi- 
nally rose out of chaos. In some of the Egyp- 
tion creation hymns these two phenomena are so 
closely intertwined as to be almost indistinguish- 
able. 

Although detailed cosmogonies are rare in 
Egypt, perhaps no other ancient literature con- 
tains so many creation hymns. In these hymns 
the work of the Creator is frequently set forth 
with some poetic beauty and with great variety 
of detail. I add a few verses taken from Brugsch 
Bey. In most of these creation is regarded as 
still going on.''' 

Father of the gods, author of men, 

Who hast suspended the heaven and estabHshed the earth, 

Maker of what is, Creator of what is to be. 

Father of the gods, author of men. 
Creator of animals, ruler of all that is. 
Creator of fruit-trees, maker of the plant which nourishes 
the cattle. 

Creator of the world, who hast suspended the heaven and 

established the earth, 
Author of men, who didst divide them according to their 

species; 

Creator of their being, who didst distinguish the color of 

one from that of his neighbor. 
He created the mountain, the gold, the silver, and the 

sapphire according to his pleasure. 

* '* Religion und Mythologie der alten /Egypter," and " Stein- 
schrift und Bibelwort," BerHn, 1891. 



LofC. 



(99) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

This last verse reminds us a little of the gold, 
bedolach and onyx of Havilah, which are intro- 
duced so unexpectedly into our second Creation 

story. 

A Hymn to Hnumu. 

Maker of the stars, author of the gods, he the existent 
one, alone, unborn, incomprehensible, before whom none 
other was, for he is the father of those whom he created. 
V/hen he formed the gods, moulded the goddesses, brought 
forth man and woman, birds, fish, the wild animal, the 
tame animal, and every reptile, he suspended the heaven 
and made fast the earth, let the waters pour out, and cre- 
ated everything which has existence. 

In another ancient hymn a king addresses his 

god in these words : 

I draw near to thee, holy architect, creator of the gods, 
maker of the egg, who is without an equal. By thy will 
was the potter's wheel brought to thee, and thy majesty 
modelled gods and men on it. Thou art the great, exalted 
god who at the beginning first didst make this world. 

Naturally much interest was felt by the Egyp- 
tians in the creation of man. On this subject 
opinion wavered in Egypt, as it did among the 
writers of Genesis. While some inscriptions and 
hymns represent man as a physical product of 
the deity, or as called into being by the word of 
God, the more popular belief was that the Cre- 
ator had modelled man out of clay with the aid 
of a potter's wheel. The inscriptions affirm that 
this image was without life until the Creator 
breathed into its nose and infused his soul into 
the clay. This tallies exactly with the words of 
the Jehovist. The most poetic conception of 
the origin of man was that man sprang from the 
tears shed by the deity. The origin of this be- 
lief, however, seems to have been a mere play on 
words. It is as if the English word for man was 
tearer, hence he is supposed to spring from tears. 

(loo) 



Egyptian Creation Hymns 



His eye wept (rimi) and out of his tears came mankind 
(rome).* 

In a long hymn of Theban origin, Amon is in- 
voked as follows : 

He is the only god who made everything that is. 

He alone and solitary creates what will be. 

Men come forth from his eyes and gods from his mouth. 

He is the maker of the plant which nourishes the herds, 
And of the trees which bear their fruits for men. 
He gives to the fish of the river their food, 

And to the birds under the heaven. 

And gives breath to all that comes forth from the egg. 

He feeds the grasshopper. 

He sustains the spider and what creeps and hops after its 

kind. 
He gives food to the mice in their holes 
And nourishes what flies in every thicket. 

Hail to thee who hast created all these, 
Thou alone, solitary, with copious hand. 

The line which speaks of " the spider and what 
creeps and hops after its kind," reminds us 
strongly of our Priestly Writer. Was it from 
Egypt, the land of the scarab — the land in 
whose plagues insects played so prominent a 
part — that our writer derived his infatuation for 
"creeping things"? Although the Egyptian 
cosmogony presents fewer points of similarity 
to ours than the Babylonian, in the monotheism 
of its thought and in its freedom from sexual al- 
lusions it is closely akin to the spirit of Genesis. 
Its general conception of physical conditions is 

* Brugsch is inclined to derive this word from an Egyptian 
root, ruf?i, to think. This lends unexpected support to the deri- 
vation of the word man from the Sanskrit root ??ian (Skeat), which 
also means to think. The secondary meaning of rtem, according 
to Brugsch, is " to lift one's self," " to be high," which again is 
closely akin to the old derivation of Anthropos. See " Stein- 
schrift u. Bibelwort," p. 17. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

much the same, and in regard to the method of 
Creation it wavers Hke Genesis between the evo- 
lution of the world egg and creation by the word 
of God. The potter and the clay are also ad- 
mitted. Lastly, the passive nature of chaos and its 
intimate association with the spirit of God, while 
differing from the transcendent idea of Genesis 
in one respect, in another respect approach the 
conception of the Priestly Writer much more 
nearly than does " raging Tiamat." In view of 
these considerations, it would be rash to say that 
our Creation story was derived from Babylonia 
alone, or that it came late to the Hebrews. 

The Persian account of Creation is so closely 
bound up with the reHgious ideas associated with 
the name of Zoroaster as to be unintelligible ex- 
cept as a part of that system. Our principal 
authority is the Bundahesh, although in this, as 
in many other instances, the statements of the 
Bundahesh often rest on the Avesta. According 
to the conceptions of the Zoroastrians, the crea- 
tion of the material world followed the creation 
of the spiritual worlds of good and evil. These 
two kingdoms have divided as light and dark- 
ness; between them lay the neutral territory of 
empty space. In this intermediate field, which 
became the field of battle of the two spiritual 
spheres, arose the material world. The dilTer- 
ence between the material and the spiritual 
world is not merely that the material world con- 
sists of gross, corporeal substance, while the spir- 
itual world is fine and invisible. The chief dif- 
ference is that the material world is finite and 
destructible, while the good side of the spiritual 
world is eternal, without beginning or end. The 



ZOROASTRIAN CoSMOGONY 



material world, on the contrary, had a begmning, 
and its duration is limited to the brief span of 
twelve thousand years. It has no independent 
place nor right of its own, but serves only as a 
battlefield of good and evil. Like everything 
else, the material world was created by the good 
being, Ahura Mazda. It was made by him to 
accomplish his beneficent purpose of self-revela- 
tion and the victory of goodness. 

The struggle between good and evil, between 
Ahura Mazda and Angro Mainyu, had long con- 
tinued before this material world arose. Already 
had Angro Mainyu made his attack on the light. 
A truce of nine thousand years had been con- 
cluded between the two forces because Ahura 
Mazda felt that he needed this respite in order 
to organize his powers for final victory. Angro 
Mainyu, whose lack of foresight did not warn 
him against this error, soon perceived his mis- 
take. This respite Ahura Mazda employed in 
creation. After he had framed the spiritual 
world of higher intelHgences, he fashioned the 
material world. First he made the heavens, with 
their celestial bodies; secondly water, then the 
earth, then trees, cattle and man.* The whole 
material creation occupied him for one year of 
three hundred and sixty-five days,t as follows : 
The creation of heaven occupied forty-five days, 
that of water sixty, earth seventy-five, trees 
thirty, cattle eighty, and man seventy-five — in all, 
six acts. For three thousand years this creation 
remained in heaven free from every plague. 
Then it was let down into the space it now occu- 

* Yasna, xix. i, 2, and Bundahesh, i. 28. 
f Bundahesh, xxv. i. 



(103) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

pies, and for three thousand years more it es- 
caped evil. Whether the world was created out 
of preexisting material or e nihilo is not definitely 
stated. From the creations of evil, the latter 
seems more probable. The material out of which 
the earth was made is not mentioned ; the heav- 
ens are said to be made of steel. After the lapse 
of six thousand years, Angro Mainyu began to 
interfere with Ahura Mazda's good creation. As 
Ahura Mazda had made the earth fruitful, Angro 
Mainyu strove to make it barren. All deserts and 
waste places were his creation, as well as the soil 
which brings forth poisonous and injurious 
plants and weeds. As Ahura Mazda created only 
good and useful plants and animals, Angro Main- 
yu retaliated by creating noxious and evil coun- 
terfeits of his handiwork, the wolf for the dog, 
the poisonous insect for the ant, the tortoise for 
the hedgehog, etc. Pages might be filled with 
accounts of Angro Mainyu's attempts to corrupt 
and ruin Ahura Mazda's good creatures. Every 
form of physical and moral evil was thus most 
conveniently accounted for. Perhaps for every 
good species of plant and animal created by 
Ahura Mazda an evil species was created by 
Angro Mainyu.* Whether a real counterpart 
to man was created by him is doubtful. At all 
events, Angro Mainyu peopled the world with 
evil beings, partly human, partly superhuman. 
After the birth of Zoroaster this power was with- 
drawn, and from henceforth Angro Mainyu can 
only revenge himself by injuring and crippling 
the human form. His peculiar work, however, 
lies in the seduction and corruption of man, 

* See Vendidad, xiii,, and Biindahesh, xix. 
(104) 



Phcenician Cosmogony 



whom Angro Mainyu ever strives to lead away 
from his creator. We see this most plainly in 
the stories of Yima the good shepherd and of 
Mashya and Mashyana. This is possibly be- 
cause man's free will makes it possible for him 
to choose good or evil. In yielding to evil, man 
comes more and more under the power of evil 
spirits, until at last, if he perseveres in sin, he be- 
comes a mere receptacle for devils.* 

The Phoenician cosmogony is contained in a 
work on Phoenician history written by Philo 
Byblius, who was born, according to Suidas, in 
42A.D. Philo'swork has perished, but several con- 
siderable fragments of it have been preserved in 
Eusebius' '' Preparatio Evangelica." t Philo pro- 
fessed to derive his knowledge of the Phoenician 
religion from a native Phoenician writer whom he 
calls Sanchuniathon, a Berytian, who is said to 
have written about 1221 b. c. The strife that has 
arisen over every one of these statements is well 
known. On account of the extreme meagreness 
of our information as to this great people, even 
such records as are preserved by Philo Byblius 
would be of the greatest value could they be 
proved genuine. On account of certain hellen- 
izing tendencies J in the so-called document of 
Sanchuniathon, it has been doubted whether 

* Vendidad, viii, 5, 31, 32. For the foregoing, in addition to 
the authorities cited, see Bundahesh, and Spiegel's " Eranische 
Alterthumskunde," ii. 141-151. 

f Cory's " Fragments," pp. 3-18. 

X I. The tendency to regard the gods as deified men after the 
manner of Euhemerus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. 
2. Philo's so-called syncretism, i.e., an inclination to confuse or 
merge the beliefs of diverse peoples, which is characteristic of the 
later development of Greek philosophy. 3. His attempt to ex- 
plain the names of Phoenician deities by the Greek gods, etc. 



{105) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Philo had any such Phoenician authority before 
him, and even whether Eusebius derived the 
Phoenician cosmogony from the work of Philo. 
Although I cannot attempt to discuss these ques- 
tions, I may say that since the investigations of 
Movers,* Ewald,t Renan,:j: Baudissin§ and oth- 
ers, there has been a reaction against the unrea- 
sonable scepticism with which Philo's work had 
been regarded. It may be considered as proved 
that Eusebius derived the accounts he has pre- 
served from Philo's vanished work, although it 
is probable that Eusebius, according to his cus- 
tom, distorted the views which he cited only to 
discredit. The name Sanchuniathon appears to 
be a genuine Phoenician name, and, although 
Philo's excerpts are strongly tinged with later 
ideas, it is certain that they were not his own 
original inventions. On the contrary, there 
seems no reason to doubt that Philo derived 
those portions of his account which are not 
Egyptian, Greek or Jewish from Phoenician 
sources, even though the work of Sanchuniathon 
be regarded as fabulous. With this brief notice 
I pass to his cosmogony. 

He supposes that the beginning of all things was a dark 
and condensed windy air, or a breeze of thick air, and 
a chaos turbid and black as Erebus, and that these were 
unbounded and for a long series of ages destitute of form. 

* "Die Phonizier," 1841, Band, ii., and article, " Phonizien," 
in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopcedia. 

f " Abhandlung liber die Phonik," " Ansichten von der Welt- 
schopfung," etc. (Abhandlungen der Konigl. Gesell. der Wissen- 
schaften zu Gottingen, 1853.) 

^ " Memoire sur I'origine et le caractere veritable de I'histoire 
phenicienne," etc., in the Memoires de I'Academie deslnscrip., 
vol. xxiii., 1858, part ii., pp. 241-334. 

§ Sanchuniathon, in his " Studien zur Semit. Religionsge- 
schichte," Leipzig, 1876. 

(106) 



Sanchuniathon's Narrative 



We see here the old Semitic antithesis of Chaos 
and Spirit. 

But when this spirit became enamoured of its own first 
principles (Chaos) and an intimate union took place, that 
connection was called Pothos (desire, the Eros of the 
Greek cosmogonies), and it was the beginning of the crea- 
tion of all things. And it (Chaos) knew not its own pro- 
duction, but from its embrace with the wind was generated 
Mot, which some call Ilus (mud), but others the putre- 
faction of a watery mixture. And from this sprang all 
the seed of the creation and the generation of the universe. 

This " Mot," which seems to be connected 
with the Hebrew mai, water, is represented here 
as a cosmogonic principle like Tehom or Tauthe. 
Its birth from the Spirit and Chaos, and its sub- 
sequent fertility, remind us of the world ^%^ of 
so many mythologies. As Renan remarks, it 
seems to mark the beginning of a new creation. 
The watery origin of the earth is also very 
familiar. 

And there were certain animals without sensation from 
which intelligent animals were produced, and these were 
called Zophasimin — that is, the overseers of the heavens — 
and they were formed in the shape of an egg, and from 
Mot shone forth the sun and the moon, the less and the 
greater stars. 

As Bunsen and Renan have remarked, a dislo- 
cation of the text occurs here. We should doubt- 
less read : 

And Mot was formed in the shape of an ^-g^ from 
which the sun and moon, the greater and lesser stars shone 
forth, and there were certain animals, etc.* 

The expression " Zophasimin " is doubtless 
Phoenician and closely resembles the Hebrew 
Zophei Shamayim or " heaven-watchers." Here 
they are apparently constellations. Then fol- 

* See Baudissin, op. cit. 13, note i. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

lows a description of the formation, by natural 
causes, of winds, clouds, thunder and lightning. 
The second cosmogony, called The Generations, 
is as follows : 

Of the wind, Colpias, and his wife, Baau, which is in- 
terpreted night, were begotten two mortal men. ^on and 
Protogonos, so-called, and ^on discovered food from 
trees. 

The introduction of these Greek names has 
given rise to suspicions that do not seem to be 
well grounded, ^on and Protogonos appear to 
be Greek translations of Semitic words, Olam 
and Kadmon '^ — '' Eternity," and '' The Man 
from the East." Kolpia also is probably a Phoe- 
nician word corresponding to the Hebrew Kol 
piach,\ or '' audible breath," while Baau is tm- 
doubtedly the Hebrew Bohu, or chaos. It is 
curious to encounter this Hebrew cosmogonic 
principle here. If the Phoenician tradition is 
genuine, it reveals to us the extreme complexity 
of the sources of our first chapter of Genesis. 

It is also interesting to observe that the first 
food of man is derived from the trees as in 
Genesis. 

The immediate descendants of these were called Genus 
and Genea, and they dwelt in Phoenicia, and when there 
were great droughts they stretched forth their hands to 
heaven toward the sun, for him they supposed to be God, 
the only Lord of Heaven, calling him Beelsamin, which in 
the Phoenician dialect signifies Lord of Heaven, but among 
the Greeks is equivalent to Zeus.:|: 

* In the Greek story (Odys. v. 333 ; Hesiod, Theog. 937) Kad- 
mos is said to be the son of the Phoenician king Agenor. He is 
represented as the founder of Thebes and as the introducer into 
Greece of the Phoenician alphabet. 

f Roth, Delitzsch, Schroder, Bunsen, Baudissin. 

\ The above translation, with slight modifications, is Cory's. 



V 



Religion of the Phoenicians 



The Phoenician origin of this statement does 
not seem to be questionable. The central object 
of worship in Phoenician mythology was un- 
doubtedly the sun. The double triad of deities 
invoked by Hannibal in his great oath to PhiHp 
of Macedon was '' Sun, moon, earth and rivers, 
meadows and waters." * The expression Beel- 
samin is plainly the Phoenician counterpart of the 
Hebrew Baal Shemesh, '' Lord Sun." From the 
way Philo represents the worship of the sun as 
arising during a period of drought, it would ap- 
pear that he wished to represent the Phoenician 
worship of the celestial bodies as following the 
worship of terrestrial objects. On this point we 
do not know enough of the development of the 
Phoenician religion to be able to say whether he 
is correct or in error. The Phoenicians wor- 
shipped sacred trees, stones, etc., with the rest of 
the Semitic world, but whether this cult preceded 
the worship of heavenly bodies I know no way 
to determine. The remainder of the cosmogony 
is taken up with the heroes and demigods who 
discovered the arts of life, first of which was the 
art of fire. In this cosmogony we discover (i) 
a primordial chaos mythically conceived and 
named, (2) a moving spirit or breath, (3) the 
world egg, (4) the origin of the world from 
water. 

We come now to Babylon. For a long time 
we have possessed some acquaintance with the 
Babylonian views of Creation through Greek 
writers, chiefly preserved by Eusebius, the 
church historian, and other late authors; but in 
recent years our knowledge has been greatly en- 

* Polyb. vii. g, 2. 



(109) 



,^my__ o^ 







The Babylonian Conception of tlie World. 
(Taken from Jensen's Kosmologle der Babylonler). 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

riched by the deciphering of the cuneiform in- 
scriptions. Instead of getting our knowledge 
at second or third hand, we have it in the very 
words and letters in which it was originally writ- 
ten. It is a thousand pities that our Bible was 
not written on clay and preserved in this way. 
Singularly, up to the present time only two''' 
such accounts have been discovered, and they 
both resemble, in some respects, the two ac- 
counts of Genesis. Both the Babylonian inscrip- 
tions, unfortunately, are mutilated. The longer 
of the two was discovered in 1873 by George 
Smith, of the British Museum. Its real purpose 
is to relate the adventures of the god Marduk, 
the chief deity of Babylon. It was intended as a 
hymn of praise to him and a description of his 
victory over a great monster called Tiamat, the 
personification of primeval chaos. The creation 
story is only an episode, and yet there is much in 
it that reminds us of the Bible. There is the 
same reserve, the same disregard of details in the 
endeavor to produce an impressive effect, and 
the same care of literary style. The Babylonian 
account, however, is poetical, and we see in it the 
literary device of parallelism which reminds us 
of the Psalms. As far as it has been deciphered 
it runs like this : 

There was a time when the Heaven above was not 

named. [Did not exist; of. Genesis.] 
Below, the earth bore no name. 
Apsu was there from the first, the source of both. [Apsu, 

the great deep.] 
And raging Tiamat, the mother of both. 
But their waters were gathered together in a mass. 

* I do not include the so-called Cutha fragment, and it is right 
to add that we possess two versions of the great Creation Epic. 

(no) 



WATERS 




Babylonian Creation Epic 



No field was marked off, no soil was seen, 

When none of the gods was as yet produced, 

No name mentioned, no fate determined. 

Then were created the gods in their totality, 

Lakhmu and Lakhamu were created. 

Days went by. 

Anshar and Kishar were created. 

Many days elapsed, 

Ann, Bel and Ea were created, 

Anshar, Ann. 

Here it breaks off. A great deal of this, how- 
ever, is perfectly plain and very important. Here 
again we find the primeval, watery, uncreated 
chaos conceived as the origin of all things. This 
chaos is called by two names — Apsu and Tiamat 
— as the Babylonians were accustomed to de- 
scribe their deities in pairs. Apsu is the male. So 
far as I know, his name is not found in Hebrew. 
Tiamat is the female principle of primitive chaos, 
and what makes her so very interesting is that 
the Hebrew equivalent for her name is found in 
the first chapter of Genesis. When we read 
'* darkness was on the face of the abyss (Te- 
hom)," we encounter the same word and the 
same idea, only toned down from a person to a 
thing. 

There are also several other conceptions that 
remind us of Genesis. The time when the heav- 
ens and the earth were not named reminds us of 
the God who gave names to earth and heaven. 
The expression '' the waters were gathered to- 
gether in a mass " reminds us of Genesis. The 
earth is described in the same way, as at first sub- 
merged and then as rising out of the water. 

Now let us go on with the story of Tiamat. 
This mother of all chaos and confusion herself 
begins to create, but she produces only monsters 

(III) 



WATERS AliON L rUL F I 



WINDOWS OH-HEA\ f 



HOIjNTAIN6,ag 
UHEAtDJSEI} 



l)U\\5 OF HEAVEN 




" n ,, 



'■" I. 



'■ Jl i: ,; ,; ,. ^^.|. V-nA'- 



^' I -v v II AN A >- \> t; A 



\\ A i^> 



\ .\.i. n i; A 



Tlw Old Hebrew Conception of the .World. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

and harmful, misshapen creatures. The inscrip- 
tion continues : 

Ummu Khubur [another name of Tiamat, meaning, per- 
haps, " hollow mother "], the Creator of everything, 
added 

Strong warriors, creating great serpents. 

Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack, 

With poison instead of blood she filled their bodies. 

Furious vipers she clothed with terror, 

Fitted them with awful splendor, made them high of 
stature, 

That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse 
horror, 

Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible. 

She set up basilisks, great serpents and monsters, 

A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion man. 

At their head she places a being named Kingu, 
whom she raises to the dignity of consort, and 
addresses him in these words : 

Through my word to thee I have made thee greatest among 

the gods. 
The rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand, 
The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one. 

Thereupon Tiamat gives him the tablets of 
fate, hangs them on his breast and dismisses him. 

We can easily see what Tiamat is doing. She, 
the mother of darkness and confusion, is plan- 
ning revolt against the heavenly gods, who, as 
we saw above, have come into being and -are 
about to invade her ancient domain. It is the 
old story of the Titans revolting against Jove. 
Already Tiamat has got hold of the tablets of fate 
that control the destiny of the universe, and here 
again we find the admission we meet with so 
often in Greek mythology, that these Httle gods 
are not the supreme masters of life. Behind 



Marduk and Tiamat 



them and above them is a greater, more power- 
ful will that none can escape, called Destiny. To 
continue this interesting Babylonian story, the 
gods are very much alarmed. They plainly stand 
in awe of raging Tiamat and her terrible confed- 
erates. Anshar, who in this difificult crisis as- 
sumes control of things, sends his son Anu with 
a soft message to Tiamat. " Go, step before 
Tiamat," he says; " may her liver be pacified, her 
heart be softened." Anu obeys, but at the first 
sight of her awful visage his heart fails and he 
comes flying back to his father. Then Anshar 
in his perplexity turns to Marduk, in whose 
honor the whole hymn is written, and Marduk 
accepts the mission without fear. The gods are 
delighted. They immediately assemble at a 
great feast. 

They ate bread, they drank wine, 

The sweet wine took away their senses, 

They became drunk and their bodies swelled up. 

Filled with the courage of wine, they begin to 
praise Marduk. 

Thou art honored among the great gods. 
Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu. 
Marduk, thou art honored among the great gods, 
Henceforth thy order is absolute. 

Some, however, doubt Marduk's ability to cope 
with Tiamat. They would like to see a sign. Ac- 
cordingly Marduk consents to work a miracle. 
A garment is placed in the midst of the gods. 
Some one says. 

Command that the dress disappear, 
Then command that the dress return. 

Marduk does both. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



As he gave the command the dress disappeared, 
He spoke again and the dress was there. 

Marduk then goes forth, armed not only with 
bow and lance and a net to catch Tiamat,but with 




THE BATTLE OF TIAMAT AND MARDUK 

winds and thunderbolts as well. Having arrived 
at Tiamat's abode, he boldly challenges her. 

Stand up, I and thou. Come, let us fight. 

Tiamat's wrath at this challenge is superb. 

When Tiamat heard these words 

She acted as one possessed, her senses left her. 

Tiamat shrieked wild and loud, 

Trembling and shaking down to her foundation 

She pronounced an incantation, uttered her sacred spell. 

In the terrible conflict that ensues Tiamat is de- 
feated. 



The Making of Firmament 



The lord spread out his net in order to enclose her, 
The destructive wind which was behind him he sent forth 

into her face, 
He drove in the destructive wind so that she could not 

close her lips. 
The strong winds inflated her, 

Her heart was beset, she opened still wider her mouth. 
He seized the spear and plunged it into her body, 
He pierced her entrails, tore through her heart, 
He seized hold of her, put an end to her life, 
He threw down her carcass and trampled upon her. 

[Mark of contempt.] 

Then Marduk attacked her confederates, tore 
the tablets of fate from Kingu's breast. This is 
the final victory. Henceforth Destiny is on the 
side of the heavenly gods. Chaos is vanquished 
forever. What follows is very curious. Mar- 
duk, we are told, begins by cutting Tiamat '' as 
one does a flattened fish into halves." He spHts 
her lengthwise. 

The one half he fastens as a covering to the heavens. 
Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian, 
With orders not to permit the waters to come out. 

Here again, in this strange, crude myth, we 
have an echo of Genesis. It is evident that the 
canopy of heaven is meant. Such is the enor- 
mous size of Tiamat that half of her flattened 
body is stretched across the heaven like a curtain. 
In short, it is the firmament that keeps the upper 
waters from coming down. But we have only to 
remember who Tiamat was, or, rather, what she 
personified — the chaotic condition of the earth 
when all was confusion and the elements were 
mingled together — to see in this myth one of the 
early acts of Creation, that first separation of the 
waters which permitted dry land to appear and 
the formation of the earth to go forward. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Coupled with this is another idea which, as we 
have seen, appears also in Greek mythology and 
is as old as the hills — the resistance of the dark, 
chaotic, brute world of matter to the light and 
leading of the gods, the unwilHngness of Chaos 
to become Cosmos. Are any traces of this 
struggle preserved in our Bible ? That, I think, 
will be a fascinating study which we will reserve 
for another chapter. To conclude this Babylo- 
nian epic, the power of Tiamat is thoroughly 
broken and the gods are free to execute their 
benevolent designs.^ Marduk, who in conse- 
quence of his victory has become chief of the 
gods, promulgates fixed laws for the universe. 
He allots the gods their places in the heavens, 
and in the various planets and fixed stars called 
after their names, and he reserves for himself the 
mansion of Nibir, or Jupiter. 

He established stations for the great gods, 

The stars their Hkeness he set up as constellations. 

He fixed the year and marked the divisions, 

The twelve months he divided among these stars 

From the beginning of the year till the close; 

He established the station of Nibir to indicate their 

boundary 
So that there might be no deviation nor wandering from 

the course.* 

Here we are reminded of the strange fact already 
mentioned, that the sun, moon and stars were not 
created until the fourth day. From the point of 
view of the writer, they could not be created until 
there was a firmament to fix them in, and before 
the firmament was created it was necessary that 

* The above translation Is Dr. Jastrow's. The most complete 
treatment of this poem is Frd. Delitzsch's " Das Babylonische 
Weltschopfung-sepos," Leipzig, 1896. 

(Tie) 



Second Babylonian Creation Story 

chaos should be overcome and divided. We are 
also reminded, as Dr. Jastrow says, of the end 
of the story of the Deluge, when after the period 
of rain and storm God reestablished the regular 
course of Nature and the fixed movements of the 
sun, saying, '' So long as the earth shall be, seed- 
time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and 
winter, day and night, shall not fail." 

It is disappointing that the latter portion of 
the Creation Epic, which is very imperfect, does 
not mention specifically the creation of plants, 
animals and man. We must remember, how- 
ever, that this poem, in spite of the name which 
has been attached to it by modern scholars, was 
not a systematic attempt to describe creation, 
but a hymn composed in honor of Marduk, who 
seems to be conceived as the sun god engaged 
in his annual struggle with the storms and floods 
of winter. Attention, therefore, is concentrated 
on his combat with Tiamat rather than on his 
subsequent acts of creation. From the distinct- 
ness with which Berosus mentions the creation 
of animals, and from his allusion to the cutting 
ofT of Bel's head, it would appear either that 
important material has been lost from the Crea- 
tion Epic or that another cuneiform creation 
story existed which we have not recovered. 

The second Babylonian account of Creation is 
shorter, and is quite different from the first. It 
was first published by Pinches in 1891, and runs 
as follows : 

The bright house of the gods was not built on the bright 

place, 
No reed grew and no tree was formed, 
No brick was laid nor any brick edifice reared, 

0^7) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

No house erected, no city built, 

No city reared, no conglomeration formed [of animals or 
men], 

Nippur was not reared, E-Kur not erected [Bel's temple 
at Nippur], 

Erech was not reared, E-Anna not erected [Ishtar's tem- 
ple at Erech], 

The deep not formed, Eridu not reared. 

The bright house of the gods not yet constructed as a 
dwelling. 

The world was all a sea, 

Marduk again appears as a creator. His first act 
is to provide the sea with a channel so that the 
waters may run off. Then the earth appears. 

Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters, 
He made dust and heaped it up in the enclosure. 

Then comes an interesting Hne : 

Mankind he created, 

although in association with a goddess named 
Aruru, who is introduced very awkwardly. Then 
follows the creation of animals. 

The animals of the field, the living creatures of the field 

he created. 
The Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave 

them good names, 
Soil [?], grass, marsh, reed, and forest he created. 
The verdure of the field he produced. 
The lands, the marsh, and thicket, 
The wild cow with her young, the young wild ox, 
The ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold, 
Parks and forests, 
The goat and wild goat he brought forth. 

That is about all, except a few lines in which 
Marduk is described as building houses and the 
city of Nippur.* 

* Jastrow's translation. 



Resemblance to -Genesis 



Now there are several things in this tablet 
which remind us of Genesis and which resemble 
the second account by the Jehovist writer more 
than the first account. The expression, " No reed 
grew, no tree was formed," is very similar to 
'' Not a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth, 
not a tree had sprouted." In the Babylonian 
poem and in the Jehovist's account, attention is 
centred upon man and the works of men. In this 
tablet cities are regarded as coeval with Creation, 
and the first act of Cain is to build a city, al- 
though, according to Genesis, there was no one 
to live in it but Cain and his wife. Again, in both 
accounts man is described as created long before 
animals, and even before plants. In Genesis the 
reason given for the non-existence of plant life is 
that '' there was not a man to till the soil." The 
point of view in both is that of civilization, cities 
and cultivated fields. In both, the rivers Tigris 
and Euphrates are mentioned, and in both, a 
park, or paradise, is prepared. If the Babylo- 
nian tablet were not so fragmentary, there would 
probably be other points of resemblance. 

And yet, in both these tablets, interesting as 
they are, the differences between them and Gen- 
esis are far deeper and more striking than the re- 
semblances. To mention only one thing, the 
gods, who are many, are represented as coming 
forth out of chaos. Both these traditions are 
very ancient (the Babylonian undoubtedly the 
older), but they were worked out on different 
soils, in accordance with the spiritual life and the 
spiritual needs of the two peoples. There lies 
the difference. 

Apart from the cuneiform Creation tablets, we 



("9) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

have two other Babylonian accounts of Creation; 
a brief fragment preserved by Damascius and a 
longer and more interesting story in Berosus. 
To these I now invite your attention. Damas- 
cius was a Neo-Platonist of Damascus, who 
lived in the sixth century of our era. The work 
from which we derive our knowledge of Baby- 
lonian cosmogony is called " Difficulties and So- 
lutions of First Principles." * His fragment is 
as follows : 

But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, 
pass over in silence the One Principle of the universe, and 
they substitute two, Tauthe and Apason, making Apason 
the husband of Tauthe, whom they call the mother of the 
gods. From these proceeds an only begotten son, Moy- 
mis, which I consider the intelligible world proceeding 
from the two principles. From them also another progeny- 
is derived, Dache and Dachus, 'and again a third, Kissare 
and Assorus, from which last come Anos, Illinos and Aos. 
The son of Aos and Dauke is Belos, who they say is the 
fabricator of the world, the Demiurge. 

In spite of small discrepancies, this pale and 
enfeebled account tallies remarkably with the 
statements of the Creation epic. We note again 
the inability of the Babylonians to conceive a 
true creation by the word or power of the gods. 
The male and female principles give birth to the 
gods, one of the youngest of whom, Bel, as in 
Berosus' account, becomes a creator. Tauthe 
and Apason are evidently Tiamat and Apsu, 
although it surprises us a little to hear that their 
child is called Moymis, or Mummu, which, in 
the cuneiform, is a name applied to Tiamat 

* What remains of it has been pubhshed by J. Kopp under the 
title " Damascii Philos. Qusestiones de Primis Principiis." Frank- 
fort, 1828. See c. 125, p. 384. 

(120) 



Berosus' Cosmogony 



herself. This is evidently another version. The 
identification of Moymis with the '' intelligible 
world " is the Neo-Platonic fancy of Damascius 
and quite foreign to the narrative. Dache and 
Dachus are evidently a copyist's error for Lache 
and Lachus; i. e., Lakhmu and Lakhamu. Kis- 
sare and Assorus are Anshar and Kishar, whose 
births are mentioned together in the Creation 
epic. Anos is certainly Anus. By Aos we na- 
turally understand Ea, though according to Jen- 
sen this is doubtful. 

Berosus' account is much more interesting : 

" There was a time," he says,* " when all was darkness 
and waters, from which wonderful beings of singular form 
arose. There were men with two wings, some also with 
four wings and two faces. They had but one body and 
two heads, the one of a man, the other of a woman, and 
likewise their several organs were male and female. f 
Other men had legs and horns of goats or the feet of 
horses. Others united the hind quarters of a horse with 
the body of a man — resembling hippocentaurs. There 
arose also bulls with men's heads, dogs with four-fold 
bodies terminating in fishes' tails; horses also, and men 
with dogs' heads, and other animals with the heads and 
bodies of horses and the tails of fishes; in short, creatures 
in which were combined the limbs of every species of 
animal. In addition to these were fishes, reptiles, serpents 
and other monstrous animals, which counterfeited one an- 
other. Pictures of them are preserved as votive offerings 
in the temple of Bel. Over them all presided a woman 
called Omorca, which in the Chaldean language is 
Thamte,t in Greek, Thalassa (of the same numerical value 
as Selene). § When things were in this situation Bel came 
and split the woman asunder. Of one half of her body h.^ 
made the earth, of the other half, the heavens, and he 

* Quoted by Eusebius, " Chronicorum Liber Prior," ed. 
Schoene, 14-18. 

f This reminds us of the Jewish conceptions of Adam and 
Eve. 

X Cod. Thalatth, corrected by R. Smith, Z. A. vi. 339, quoted 
here frorn Gunkel, S. and C. 19, note i. 

%''0u6f)Ka = 6E\r]vr] = 301. 



(121) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



destroyed the animals that belonged to her. All this he 
(Berosus) says was intended for an allegorical descrip- 
tion of natural processes. The whole universe was once 
a fluid, in which rose the animals described above. How- 
ever, Bel, the Greek Zeus, divided the darkness through 
the middle, separated earth and heaven from each other 
and established thereby the order of the universe. The 
creatures, however, could not endure the light and per- 
ished.* When Bel saw the earth without inhabitants and 
fruit, he commanded one of the gods to cut off his (Bel's) 
head and to mingle the flowing blood with earth and 
thence to form other men and animals capable of endur- 
ing the air. Bel also completed the stars, sun, moon and 
the five planets. Such, according to Alexander Poly- 
histor, is the account which Berosus gives in his first 
book.f This god is obliged to cut of¥ his own head and 
the other gods must mingle the flowing blood with earth 
and make men out of it that they may be intelligent and 
partake of the divine understanding." 



In spite of the roundabout way by which Be- 
rosus' account has come to us, its general con- 
sistency with the cuneiform account is very strik- 
ing. We find here, as in the creation epic, the 
primordial chaos of darkness and waters ante- 
rior to the gods, presided over by Mother Tia- 
mat, here called Thamte. The animals and 
strange composite beings brought forth by her, 
though more particularly described, are of the 
same order as the '' strong warriors," " great 
serpents," '' furious vipers," '* great monsters," 
and '* mad dogs," *' raging monsters," '* fish 
men," '' scorpion men," etc., described in the 
poem, and also in the Cutha creation fragment. 
In both instances the conception seems to be 
that chaos is fruitful and capable of producing 

* The text of this sentence is according to Gutschmid's emen- 
dation. 

f What follows appears to be Eusebius' contemptuous com- 
ment (Budde, Gunkel). 

(122) 



Criticism of Berosus 



life ; but without the light and intelligence of the 
gods, it gives birth to confusion and monstrosi- 
ties. In Berosus' account these misshapen prod- 
igies are plainly animals of the water, incapable 
of enduring light or air. When the water is 
drawn off they die. The name given to the mis- 
tress of chaos, Omorca, which Gunkel writes 
'Om 'orqa [je], I beHeve he may claim the 
credit of explaining. Most scholars had as- 
sumed it to be a Babylonian word, which is some- 
what surprising, as both the Babylonian and 
the Greek equivalents are given in the text. 
This being the case, Gunkel points out that 
Omorca must be a word of the Aramaic language 
which was spoken in Babylonia in Berosus' time. 
He considers it to mean '' mother of the deep," or 
" mother of the lower world," which is not unlike 
the epithet " hollow mother," bestowed on Tia- 
mat in the Creation poem. Just as in that poem, 
before creation can take place Marduk divides 
Tiamat, so here Bel splits this woman asunder; 
of one half of her he makes the earth, and of the 
other, the firmament of the sky. The meaning 
is obviously the same as in the Creation epic and 
in Genesis. In fact, the rational meaning of 
this strange act is plainly stated by Berosus. The 
splitting of the dark chaos and the establishment 
of the firmament admits Hght and draws off the 
superfluous waters. The subsequent acts of 
Creation are confused, owing to the evident con- 
densation of the narrative, and yet the creation 
of animals and men is plainly mentioned, and 
from the allusion to the unfruitfulness of the 
earth which reminds us of our Jehovist's account, 
it would appear that the creation of plant life was 



(123) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

originally included. Last of all, even later than 
in Genesis, is an express statement of the crea- 
tion of the sun, moon, fixed stars and planets. 
There remains one very strange conception, as 
to which Eusebius' faith failed, and which is not 
alluded to in the cuneiform account — I mean 
Bel's sacrifice of his own head and the mingling 
of his blood with the clay, out of which men and 
animals were to be made. If this remarkable 
statement stood alone we might regard it as an 
utter misconception, a libel on the good sense of 
Berosus. But as we read Eusebius' scornful 
comment that this was done in order that men 
might partake of the divine nature, a suspicion 
begins to dawn on us. We remember that in the 
first account of Genesis, man is said to be formed 
in the image of God. We also recall the fact that 
to the Semite the essence of fife and the soul is 
blood. It is therefore possible that the author 
of this curious myth was endeavoring to express 
in his crude way his sense of our participation of 
the divine nature, and we also remember that in 
our second account Jahveh breathed into man's 
nostrils (literally, blew into his nose) the breath 
of life, and so man became a living being. These 
two essences of life — breath and blood — are after 
all but variations of the same idea. 

There is one other matter that I wish to touch 
on — the universal opinion that before the world 
took on its present form and beauty, chaos 
reigned, and there was a very general belief in the 
existence of the world egg. Does any trace of 
that tgg lurk in Genesis? Only in the expression, 
" And the Spirit of God was brooding tenderly 
on the face of the waters." That raises the ques- 



Chaos and a World Egg 



tion which is supposed to embrace the whole of 
science, Which came first, the conscious hen or 
the unconscious egg? And the answer which 
Genesis gives to that question is the only true 
answer. In order to account for anything, the 
hen and the egg and the nest are all necessary. 
Let him that heareth understand. 

In regard to the chaos of waters out of which 
the world arose, we may say two things: Some- 
thing within us tells us that everything finite had 
a beginning. Just as every\)bject the earth pro- 
duces had a beginning, so did the earth itself. The 
conception of the earth rising out of the watery 
chaos, which is well nigh universal, may have 
arisen in this way. The great peoples of an- 
tiquity, whose traditions spread everywhere, all 
lived on low, alluvial plains along the banks of 
great rivers that overwhelmed them almost every 
winter: the Egyptians, in the plain of the Nile; 
the forefathers of the Hebrews and Chaldeans, 
on the Tigris and Euphrates; the Hindus, on^ 
the Indus and Ganges. Now this phenom- 
enon of the earth rising out of the waters oc- 
curred before their eyes every year. In the 
spring, as the waters subsided, the dry and fertile 
land appeared, and life of every kind broke forth 
anew. It was, therefore, very natural for them 
to think of a first springtide, when life broke 
forth for the first time, especially as it was the 
warm, rich deposit of the river that made their 
land so fertile, and since, when the river did not 
rise, when the land in the spring did not come 
forth out of the waters, instead of life and plenty, 
death and famine stared them in the face. What 
makes this more probable is the fact that the 



(1^5) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Greeks, who lived in a very different country, 
had no such tradition. With them the earth does 
not rise out of the sea. On the contrary, the sea 
is created by the broad-bosomed earth.* 

* I have mentioned only one of the many motives which have 
induced almost all nations to regard water as the primordial 
element out of which the earth arose. For further discussion of 
this question, see Ueberweg's " Geschichte der Philosophie," on 
Thales ; Brinton's " Myths of the New World," 144, 159, 227 ff. ; 
and Brugsch, " Religion und Mythologie," pp. 106, 107. 



(126) 



Chaos the Datum of all Cosmogonies 



Chapter Seven: 
^be Chaos Monster in the Old 'Testament 

IN the previous chapter we examined the va- 
rious accounts of Creation handed down 
by several of the great civiHzed nations of an- 
tiquity. Those accounts naturally differed widely 
from one another, but in regard to the starting 
point of Creation they were all in agreement. 
Hindus, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, and 
Phoenicians all assumed as the origin of the 
world an uncreated chaos of darkness, in which 
all the elements of the world existed in a state of 
utter confusion. "^ The work of Creation consisted 
in separating the elements of this primeval chaos 
and reducing them to order. In this idea they all 
agree in a general way with the first chapter of 
Genesis, which also assumes a preexistent chaos 
as the material out of which the world was 
formed. " And the earth was a waste and an 
empty chaos, and darkness was on the face of the 
abyss " (Tehom). It is not stated definitely that 
this chaos, the raw material of Creation, was 
created by God out of nothing. On the contrary, 

* The Zoroastrian Creation story is an exception. It, how- 
ever, is hardly entitled to be called an ancient cosmogony, so 
thoroughly is it infused with the principles of Zoroastrian theo- 

^ogy- 

(127) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

its existence is tacitly assumed. It is introduced 
without a word of explanation. What God 
created is the '' heaven and earth," the Cosmos, 
the adorned world of light and the orderly se- 
quence of nature. The word '^ create " (bara) 
does not convey the idea of creation out of noth- 
ing. Its original meaning is to cut, to hew out, 
to dress stones. It therefore rather presupposes 
the existence of a material. When we reached 
the two Creation tablets of Babylon, however, 
we found their points of resemblance with Gene- 
sis more numerous and striking. It is certainly 
interesting that up to this time only two accounts 
of Creation have been discovered, and that both 
resemble, in certain respects, our two accounts. 
For convenience sake I will give a summary of 
the story, in order to bring out a very important 
conception, to which this chapter will be de- 
votee 

here was a time when the Heaven above was not named. 
Below the earth bore no name, 
Apsu was there from the first, the source of both, [Apsu, 

the great deep,] 
And raging Tiamat, the mother of both. 

Apsu and Tiamat, the male and female prin- 
ciples, are here introduced as the personification 
of primeval chaos, from whose union everything, 
including the gods themselves, is born. Apsu, 
the male principle, does not figure prominently 
in what follows. He seems to be introduced only 
because the Babylonians always conceived their 
gods as existing in pairs. As far as is known, 
his name does not appear in the Bible. Tiamat, 
on the contrary, is a very important personage, 



Tehom and Tiamat 



and what makes her interesting to us is that her 
name occurs on the first page of Genesis. When 
we read " darkness was on the face of the abyss," 
the word used, '' Tehom," is only the Hebrew 
equivalent for Tiamat. Her history, therefore, 
is of great importance to us. The first thing 
Tiamat does is to plan a revolt against the heav- 
enly gods whom she and Apsu have brought into 
existence. To aid her in this attempt she creates 
terrible, misshapen monsters — the crab, the mad 
dog, the scorpion-man — and sets them in high 
places. These are evidently those constellations 
of the sky — the children of night — which were 
conceived as the causes of misfortune and dis- 
ease. She obtains possession of the tablets of 
fate and hangs them round Kingu's neck. The 
gods are very much alarmed. Anshar, their 
chief, sends his son Anu to her in hope of mollify- 
ing her, but in vain. 

Then Anshar turns to Marduk, his younger 
son, the chief deity of Babylon, in whose honor 
the whole poem is written, and Marduk at once 
sets out to fight with her. The terrible wrath 
of Tiamat and the battle that follows are de- 
scribed in glowing language. Marduk con- 
quers. He kills Tiamat and tramples on her 
body as a mark of contempt. Then a very 
strange thing follows. He takes the vast body 
of Tiamat, flattened out, we are told, like a salted 
fish, and splits it lengthwise. Then come these 
words in the inscription : 

The one half [of her body] he fastens as a covering to 

the heavens, 
Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian, 
With orders not to permit the waters to come out. 



(129) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

The resemblance between this account and 
Genesis is unmistakable as far as it goes. We 
have in both the primeval chaos out of which 
Creation comes, called by the same name; in Gen- 
esis, Tehom; in Babylonian, Tiamat. The first 
act of Creation is the division of this ancient chaos 
by a firmament which separates the waters above 
from the waters beneath. Not until this firma- 
ment is fixed^ can the sun, moon and stars ap- 
pear, because there is nothing to fasten them to; 
but immediately afterward, in both the Baby- 
lonian and the Hebrew account, they are created 
and fixed in the firmament. 

At the first glance, and to the casual observer, 
the two ideas of chaos — Tehom and Tiamat — 
seem to have almost nothing to do with each 
other. Tiamat, the Babylonian chaos, is con- 
ceived as a person; Tehom, the great abyss, is 
conceived absolutely impersonally as a purely 
physical phenomenon. Of the mythical side of 
chaos, of its stubborn resistance to the will of 
God, of its revolt against Heaven, of the neces- 
sity for a struggle in which this wild personifica- 
tion of darkness is killed and trodden under foot, 
in the first chapter of Genesis there is not a trace. 
It might therefore appear that the enthusiastic 
Assyriologists see resemblances everywhere 
when they wish to see them and close their eyes 
resolutely to all differences that are not forced 
upon them. One of the most brilliant and 
original writers on this subject * has made the 
suggestion that although the personal, resisting 
character of chaos may have disappeared entirely 

* Gunkel, " Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit." 
Gottingen, 1895. 

(130) 



Chaos a Mythical Monster 



in the* hands of the Priestly Writer, who is a 
sworn foe to all mythology, yet if such a strange 
and withal fascinating conception of chaos ever 
existed in the minds of the old Israehtes, it could 
not well have disappeared without leaving some 
trace behind. The passages Gunkel brings for- 
ward sufficiently show that those strange texts — 
so different from anything else in the Bible, over 
which many of us have puzzled all our lives and 
whose meaning we have never been able to 
understand — have a meaning, and that they 
throw a new light on the part which ancient 
tradition plays, not only in Genesis, but in many 
other passages of the Old Testament. 

The question is : Does the idea of chaos, 
conceived in the form of a mythical monster 
which resists the will of God, and which must be 
destroyed before the work of Creation can go 
forward, exist at all in the Old Testament? In 
the first chapter of Genesis we find the counter- 
part of old Tiamat, whom Marduk slew, in Te- 
hom, the dark abyss of waters, but in Genesis the 
myth is wholly rationalized; Tehom is a thing, 
not a person, and as such it is incapable of oppos- 
ing the will of God. Tehom is not killed and 
pierced with a dart, it is simply divided. The 
mythical aspect of chaos has wholly disappeared. 
It is, however, quite possible that our author in 
his picture of chaos was influenced by the Egyp- 
tian cosmogony, in which chaos was conceived 
impersonally. But how is it with other chapters 
and passages ? Are there any which preserve the 
original characteristics of chaos, conceived as a 
huge, angry sea-monster, the living genius of the 
abyss? That is a question well worth lingering 



(131) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

over, for it will not only throw light on several 
passages of the Bible which we have read all our 
lives without understanding, but it will also show 
us to what an extent the most inspired writers 
were influenced by the ancient traditions of the 
Hebrew people.* Let us now look at a few pas- 
sages. Isaiah, li. 9 : 

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jahveh ; 

Awake as in days of yore, the ages of far-off antiquity. 

Was it not thou who didst shatter Rahab and shame the 
Dragon? 

Was it not thou who didst dry up the sea, the waters of 
the great flood [Tehom] ? 

Who didst make the depths of the sea a way for the re- 
deemed to pass over? 

There is here undoubtedly an allusion to the 
crossing of the Red Sea, but that by no means 
exhausts the meaning of these verses. The pas- 
sage of the narrow arm of the Red Sea could 
hardly be called " drying up the waters of the 
great flood." Moreover, though Rahab and the 
Dragon may have been figuratively employed 
for Egypt and Pharaoh, assuredly that was not 
their original meaning. The shattering of Rahab, 
which means '' raging monster," and the sham- 
ing of the Dragon, stand parallel to " Thou didst 
dry up the sea, the waters of the great flood." 
The very expression, " as in the days of yore, 
the ages of far-off antiquity," points back to the 
most remote past. The destruction of Pharaoh's 
host in the Red Sea is compared to the destruc- 
tion of the old sea monster here called Rahab, 
and that monster was destroyed by the drying up 

* The argument which follows, with the translation and inter- 
pretation of passages, is largely taken from Gunkel. 

(132) 



Rahab 



of the depths in which she dweh; that is to say, 
by the destruction of Tehom, which is the word 
used in Genesis. The very expression '' Thou 
didst shame the Dragon " reminds us of Mar- 
duk's putting his foot on Tiamat. The force of 
all this will become more evident when we have 
looked at a few more passages. Psalm Ixxxix. 
10 ff.: 

Thou art Lord over the arrogant sea, 
When its surges roar Thou hushest them. 
Thou hast shamed Rahab Hke carrion, 
With strong arm hast Thou scattered Thy foes. 
The heavens are Thine, Thine is the earth, 
The world and what fills it Thou hast established, 
The North and the South Thou hast created, 
Tabor and Hermon praise Thy name. 

In this hymn, Jahveh is praised for the conquest 
of Rahab, who here, too, is placed parallel to 
the sea. Rahab, the great monster of the deep, 
is represented before Creation as insolently lift- 
ing herself up against Jahveh, but He puts her 
down and kills her. In the expression " Thou 
has shamed Rahab hke carrion," we find some al- 
lusion to the terrible vengeance Jahveh wreaked 
on her corpse, as Marduk insulted the corpse of 
Tiamat. Rahab has her confederates, but these 
other " enemies of Jahveh " are chased away and 
scattered. Only after Rahab is killed and put 
down does the work of Creation follow. So here 
again we have the same conception. A sea 
monster, Rahab, with her confederates, lifts her- 
self in rage against Jahveh. He puts her down 
and kills her, takes revenge on her corpse, 
and then goes on to create the heaven and the 
earth. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Very similar to this in many respects is Job, 
xxvi. 12, 13 : 

With His might has He stilled the sea. 

By His intelligence has He crushed Rahab to pieces. 

The pillars of Heaven shudder before Him, 

His hand shames the fleeing serpent. 

Here, too, Rahab, the chaos monster, is placed 
parallel to the raging sea ; again we hear of sham- 
ing Rahab as Marduk shamed Tiamat. But what 
is most surprising is the allusion to the bolts or 
pillars of heaven. After Marduk had spHt Tia- 
mat in twain and out of one half had made the fir- 
mament, we read that he attached bolts there and 
set a guard so that the waters should not fall 
through. In this passage of Job, we find a second 
monster called the " fleeing serpent," just as in 
Isaiah we saw the Dragon beside Rahab, and in 
the Babylonian inscription Tiamat and Apsu. 
Now let us turn to Psalm Ixxiv. 12 fif. : 

Thou, Jahveh, art my king from of old. 

. . . Thou hast split the sea with might, 

Hast crushed the heads of dragons till on the water they 
floated. 

Thou hast shattered the heads of Leviathan, 

Thou hast given him as meat to the jackals of the wilder- 
ness, 

For spring and brook Thou hast cloven an opening, 

Ancient streams hast Thou dried up. 

The day is Thine, the night is Thine, 

Starry light and sun hast Thou provided. 

All divisions on the earth hast Thou laid down, 

Thou makest summer and winter. 

We see how frequently the same idea is re- 
peated. In every one of these passages, before 
Creation, before earth and sun and moon are 
made, there are chaotic monsters of the deep to 
be destroyed. Then Creation follows. In this 

0^34) 



Leviathan and the Dragon of the Deep 

psalm the author speaks plainly of God's dividing 
the old, chaotic sea, and parallels it with crushing 
the heads of the dragons until they float on the 
waters. The ancient channels are dried up and 
new channels are made. Here again two kinds 
of monsters are described, the dragon of the 
deep and a new monster called Leviathan, who 
has many heads. What follows is very interest- 
ing. '' Thou hast smitten the heads of Leviathan 
in pieces and gavest him as food to the beasts of 
the desert." This strange passage, for the first 
time, perhaps, becomes inteUigible. The dry 
desert is conceived in opposition to water, the 
home of Leviathan, the sea monster. 

After Jahveh has crushed the heads of the 
monster of the sea, he throws him on to dry land 
where the sands drink him up. So the old chan- 
nels of water are dried, and new springs break 
forth in the desert. 

The religious meaning with which this myth 
was employed as an allegory by the Psalmist is 
perfectly plain. Just as Jahveh has overcome 
His enemies of old and slain the dragon and 
crushed the heads of insolent Leviathan, so will 
He do again. Therefore His people may trust 
in Him without fear. 

Another passage of the same sort is Isaiah, 
xxvii. I : 

In that day will Jahveh punish with His sword so hard 

and great and strong, 
Leviathan the fleeing serpent, and Leviathan the crooked 

[coiled] serpent. 
And will slay the Dragon in the sea. 

This is in the form of a prophecy, but it goes 
back to the same old story. Leviathan, the flee- 

"" 035) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

ing serpent, is the same conception as Tiamat 
fleeing from Marduk. Mr. F. Wells Williams, of 
New Haven, has an Assyrian cylinder, repre- 
senting the dragon flying from Marduk, who is 
pursuing her with a sword. It will be noticed in 
this chapter of Isaiah that Jahveh kills Leviathan 
with a sword, which is described in a particular 
way as hard and great and strong. The coiled 
or crooked serpent is probably the mythical 
ocean which the Greeks as well as the Baby- 
lonians beHeved to coil circlewise round the 
world. Three monsters are mentioned here — 
Leviathan, the fleeing serpent; Leviathan, the 
coiled serpent, and the Dragon of the sea; but 
they are all mythical monsters of chaos and the 
abyss, whom Jahveh slays with His sword. 

We will mention only one other passage of this 
nature, draw the needful conclusions, and then 
return to Genesis. It is Job's celebrated account 
of Leviathan in the fortieth and the forty-first 
chapters. This wonderful description is generally 
supposed to apply to the crocodile of the Nile. 
Much of the description does apply to the croco- 
dile very well, but there is a good deal more that, 
even allowing for poetic exaggeration, does not 
correspond with any known animal that ever 
swam in the water or walked on land. The words 
of Job are these : 

Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a fish hook? 

Wilt thou hold his tongue fast In a noose? 

Wilt thou lay a hook in his mouth, 

And bore through his cheeks with a ring? 

Will he supplicate thee for pity, 

And address thee with sweet words? 

Will he make a compact with thee, 

And engage himself to serve thee forever? 

(^36) 



Leviathan in Job 



Wilt thou play with him as with a sparrow,^ 
And tie him with a string to amuse thy children? 

All this is intended to prove that man can 
never overcome Leviathan. Job is convinced 
that men will never be able to catch him. A great 
deal of this applies well enough to fishing, and 
perhaps even to fishing for crocodiles, with which, 
we maybe sure, silk lines and split bamboos would 
be of little account. But as soon as Job speaks of 
Leviathan's uttering prayers of suppHcation 
and making compacts, we can see that it is not 
the crocodile of which he is thinking, though the 
expression '' crocodile tears " has lasted from 
that day to this. Leviathan is plainly one of the 
old brood of mythical animals of the sea, the 
spirit of the deep who regulates the tides. This 
becomes plainer as we go on : 

Lay thy hand on him but once, 

Thou wilt not a second time think of war; 

Then will all thy self-confidence be found a lie. 

A god would lower his glance before him, 

An angel would hesitate to awake him. 

And who would venture to walk in front of him? 

Who has fought with him and come out of it alive? 

Under the whole Heaven, not one. 

Certainly this is no crocodile. 

He makes the deep to seethe like a pot. 

The sea like a boiling kettle. 

The bed of the rivers is his path, 

You would think that the sea had white hair. 

On earth there is not his like. 

He is created to be lord of the lower world [Tehom]. 

It is he whom all the mighty fear. 

It is he who is king over all the proud. 

'' King of the mighty," " Lord of Tehom," the 
(137) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

abyss, he is the true child of chaos, whom God 
alone can overcome. 

Under the guidance of Gunkel, we have now 
brought together facts enough to prove con- 
clusively that the idea of chaos conceived as a 
living monster or a number of monsters was per- 
fectly familiar to the writers of the Old Testa- 
ment, and was freely employed by them in hymns 
and for other religious purposes. In the Book of 
Genesis the word Tehom occurs, around which 
the whole Babylonian myth was built, but in Gen- 
esis every mythical trait has disappeared. Not so, 
however, in Isaiah, in Job, and in many Psalms. 
Leviathan, Behemoth, Rahab, the fleeing ser- 
pent, the crooked serpent, the great dragon, all 
the children of chaos, are conceived as living, or 
as once alive, and as rising in insolence against 
Jahveh. Jahveh is obliged to fight with them 
and to kill them before the work of Creation can 
continue. In our accounts, as in the Babylonian, 
the dead bodies of these monsters are not buried, 
but are used in making the world. Job speaks of 
the bars and bolts of Heaven, with which Marduk 
fastened the body of Tiamat ; Genesis assigns to 
the firmament the function of separating the 
waters above from the waters below. The Psalm 
tells how the body of the dead Leviathan nour- 
ishes life in the desert, i. e., supplies men and 
beasts and plants with water. AH this shows 
us how closely the old traditions of Babylon and 
Israel were related, and what a place these 
myths occupied in the background of even the 
most religious minds. If this study has shown 
us the significance of those strange figures of the 
Old Testament, Rahab, Leviathan, the great 

(138) 



Original Meaning of Tehom in Genesis 

dragon, the fleeing serpent, etc., we need not 
begrudge the time. 

There is one conclusion to be drawn from these 
passages that is very interesting. We have 
seen what an important part was played by 
Mother Tiamat in the Babylonian cosmogony. 
In our first account of Creation in Genesis, the 
same conception remains concealed in the old 
word Tehom. But in Genesis this strange per- 
sonality has paled into a mere thing ; not so, how- 
ever, in the passages I have cited from Isaiah, 
Job, and the Psalms. There the old chaos 
monster, whether it is called Rahab or Levia- 
than or the crooked serpent, reappears in all its 
native energy. Erom Isaiah's allusion to this 
mythical being as living '' in the days of old, in 
the ages of far-off antiquity," it was plainly the 
subject of a very ancient myth. From the casual 
manner in which the sacred writers introduce 
this strange being, without a word of explana- 
tion, it was apparently familiar enough to their 
contemporaries. It is therefore not too bold 
to conjecture that at one time '' the raging 
Tiamat," or, rather, her Hebrew counterpart, 
played a far more important role in the Hebrew 
Creation story than she does now; and that in the 
numerous recensions our story has undergone, 
her crude and revolting personality has been 
gradually eHminated until nothing but her name 
remains. From the way she is associated in 
Job with '' the pillars of heaven " it is plain that 
in the Hebrew tradition, also, her divided body 
formed the firmament of the sky, a fact which is 
still evident in the first chapter of Genesis. 

As to the document of Genesis in which this 

(139) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

myth was preserved, it would be rash to speak 
with confidence. We remember, however, that 
the Jehovist's account of Creation is short and 
evidently much mutilated, that the Jehovist lived 
centuries before the Priestly Writer, that he was 
much more lenient than the latter toward the 
ancient traditions of his people, and that he 
actually speaks in the blessing of Joseph of " the 
deep (Tehom) that croucheth beneath." It may 
well be that in his original story of Creation Tia- 
mat was finely represented with all her mythical 
characteristics, and that she occupied a promi- 
nent place in his narrative. Later revisers, of- 
fended at the crudity of the conception, felt 
obliged to remove a body that had become alto- 
gether foreign to the religion of Israel. In re- 
moving her they were obliged to cut deep into 
the Jehovist's original account. If this surmise 
is correct, religion probably gained, but science 
has suffered an irreparable loss. The idea under- 
lying all these strange conceptions is also inter- 
esting. Separated from its purely mythical 
setting, it is simply this: The material out of 
which the world is made offers a kind of resist- 
ance to the will of God. Chaos is old and it is 
stubborn. In the end it is overcome and killed, 
but it resists as long as possible. Now, although 
this may not be the correct and final solution of 
the problem of Creation, it is a temptingly easy 
solution, and we need not wonder that it has 
found a place in almost all religions and in a 
great many philosophies.* There is something 

* It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the sense of 
this antithesis runs through all mythologies. The names change, 
the opposition of intractable matter to the idea remains the 

(140) 



Chaos and Cosmos 



essentially evil in nature. There is something 
essentially evil, stubborn, and resisting in our- 
selves, which we are very apt to associate with 
the flesh; that is to say, with the animal, carnal 
element in us that we take from Nature. Look 
at Creation for a moment, and think how slowly 
it has gone forward, how long it has taken the 
higher forms of life to come into existence. 
It is as if God had encountered immense difficul- 
ties in shaping a stubborn, intractable material 
and in compelling it at last to do His will. Think 
of the monsters of the old world whose huge 
bones enable us to reconstruct their strange, 
gigantic forms^ or which we occasionally find 
embedded in the ice intact. What rational pur- 
pose could they have served? Can we wonder 
that the Psalmist of old believed God had made 
them merely to amuse Himself? "There go 
the ships and there is that Leviathan whom 
Thou hast made [as a toy] to play with." Or 
look at the evil that is in every child of man, 
and seems an essential part of human nature, 
against which we must struggle our whole lives 
long, and which is ever resisting and ever com- 
pelling us to do what in our better nature we have 
no wish to do. It certainly seems to have some- 
thing of the old chaos and darkness about it. It 
is always trying to quench the light of God, the 
light of conscience, the light of reason in us, to 
destroy the plan of our life and reduce us to the 
condition of chaos and darkness in which law 

same. We find it in the story of Jahveh and Rahab, of Marduk and 
Tiamat, in the battle of Phoebus with the Pythian monster, in 
Indra's conflict with the serpent Vritra, in Sigurd and the Dragon, 
in CEdipus and the Sphinx, etc. 



(141) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

and order are unknown and all the elements of 
the soul are mingled m purposeless conflict and 
tumult. 

And yet, strange to say, this resistance is the 
very condition of our moral life and progress. 
The light dove, winging her way across the 
heaven, thinks if it were not for the heavy imped- 
ing atmosphere she would rise higher and fly 
more swiftly. But it is only the resistance of the 
air to the stroke of her wing that enables her to 
rise at all. In a vacuum she would collapse into 
a handful of feathers. So it is only by resisting 
the instincts of our lower nature that we become 
good. If goodness were as easy and natural as 
breathing or as obeying the law of gravitation, 
there would be no merit in it. We take no credit 
to ourselves because our heart is always beating, 
or because we do not fly away to the moon. But 
it is just because goodness is so hard to attain, 
because we never do a good action without hav- 
ing the opportunity to do a bad one, that the 
world bows down to its good men. In them we 
feel that God has won a victory of whose fruits 
we all partake. 

What the nature of this resisting chaos is, we 
do not know. Neither the Babylonian legend 
nor the Book of Genesis can tell us. The Baby- 
lonian legend simply assumes Tiamat as existing 
from the beginning. Out of her come the gods 
who eventually destroy her. The Book of Gen- 
esis, though more guarded in its language, does 
not say that God created chaos, probably for this 
reason. All that God made is good. Chaos is 
evil. Even the firmament which was made out 
of Tiamat, according to the Babylonian account. 



The Sabbath Day 



God carefully refrains from calling good. In 
Isaiah, Job, and the Psalms, the existence of the 
mythical chaos-monster is assumed, but it is 
nowhere said that God created him. 

Finally, let us consider the idea of the Sabbath 
day in this chapter. It is introduced with much 
art. The author places the observance of the 
Sabbath long before Moses, at the creation of 
the world itself, or, rather, he gives here the 
reason why the Sabbath day was afterward kept. 
The sanction of the Sabbath day is the rest of 
God after Creation. To us, that is a mere rever- 
sal of the facts of the case. The introduction of 
the Sabbath is the objective point of the whole 
account of Creation. It was his wish to intro- 
duce the seventh day into his story that led our 
author to choose six days for the work of Crea- 
tion, in a manner that would be altogether 
meaningless and arbitrary were it not for the 
necessity of ending with the seventh day, the day 
of rest. To do this he is obliged on two occa- 
sions to crowd two acts of creation into one day 
— the separation of land and water and the crea- 
tion of vegetation on the third day, and the 
creation of land animals and of man on the sixth 
day. 

And yet, as we shall see, our author had a 
reason for placing the hallowing of the Sabbath 
day long before Moses, and even long before the 
beginning of Hebrew history. What is that rea- 
son ? Or we might as well ask. What is the origin 
of the Sabbath day, one of the greatest blessings 
that religion has ever bestowed upon man? If 
Moses did not originate that observance, how old 
is it, and where did it originate? We do not find 



(143) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

any trace of it among the Greeks or Egyplians, 
whose week consisted of ten days.* The Arabs 
undoubtedly learned to observe the Sabbath 
from the Jews. So only Babylonia is left, and 
there we find just what we are looking for. In 
the sacred calendar of Babylon for the inter- 
calated months Elul^ which was discovered by 
Rawlinson, and is preserved in the British Mu- 
seum, we read that the seventh, the fourteenth, 
the twenty-first, and the twenty-eighth days of 
the lunar month were called Udu Khulgal, an 
unlawful day. We read also in this calendar the 
directions for the observance of that day : 

The seventh day is a resting day to Merodach [Mar- 
duk] and Zarpanit [his consort]. The Shepherd of mighty 
nations [this possibly takes us back to the earhest Accadian 
times, when kings remembered that their predecessors had 

* Ferdinand Baur's assertion (" Der Hebraische Sabbat," etc., 
Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1832, pp. 123-igi) that the 
Hebrew Sabbath was originally associated with the worship of 
Saturn, and hence with the Roman Saturnalia, is justified only 
to this extent. The Romans, who originally had a week of eight 
days, later adopted the Babylonian week of seven days. From 
Babylon they learned to call the days of the week after the heav- 
enly bodies. The order is as follows: i. Sunday = Shamash 
(Sun-god). 2. Monday = Sin (Moon-god). 3. Tuesday = 
Nergal (Mars). 4. Wednesday = Nebo (Mercury). 5. Thurs- 
day = Merodach (Jupiter). 6. Friday = Ishtar (Venus). 7. Sat- 
urday = Adar (Saturn). This order, however, is not invariable 
in the cuneiform lists. From the Romans the names of the days 
of the week passed to the whole civilized world. That the 
Hebrew Sabbath had any closer connection with the Roman 
Saturnalia, a feast which occurred only once a year, is prepos- 
terous. It is true, late Roman writers (e. g,, Tacitus, Hist. v. 4) 
associate the Saturnalia with the Jewish Sabbath, but this re- 
semblance as far as it existed is to be explained by their common 
Babylonian origin. The Italian festival is very old. The week 
of seven days, however, did not come to the Romans much before 
the Christian Era, nor did the Hebrews ever name their week 
days after the planets, but described them as the first, second, etc., 
day after the Sabbath. 

(144) 



Babylonian Sabbath 



been only shepherd chiefs] must not eat flesh cooked at 
the fire or in the smoke. His clothes he changes not. A 
washing he must not make. He must not offer sacrifice. 
The king must not drive in his chariot. He must not issue 
royal decrees. In secret places the augur a muttering 
makes not. Medicine for the sickness of the body one 
must not apply. For making a curse it is not fit. In the 
night the king makes his free will offering to Merodach 
and Istar. Sacrifice he slays. The lifting of his hand finds 
favor with his god.* 

This is of incomparable interest, not only be- 
cause it proves the existence of the Sabbath long 
before the age of Abraham, but also because we 
find here those minute prescriptions in regard to 
cooking food, changing one's clothes, and travel- 
ling on the Sabbath, for which we have been in 
the habit of criticizing the late Jewish doctors, 
but which, apparently, came down to them from 
the most remote antiquity. Perhaps in the his- 
tory of the world we could hardly find an equal 
example of the vitality of a religious tradition. 
I remember that as a child I was allowed to take 
walks on Sunday, but not to drive in a carriage. 
Little did I suspect that this was because it was 
engraved on the old Babylonian tablet " He shall 
not drive in a chariot." " Medicine for the sick- 
ness of the body he shall not apply." The viola- 
tion of this latter injunction was one of the 
charges brought against Jesus, and well did He 
say, '' Ye make the commands of God of no effect 
through your traditions." 

Let us look a Httle more closely at the Babylo- 
nian conception of the Sabbath presented on this 
tablet. We notice that all injunctions in regard 
to the keeping of this day are addressed solely to 

* Boscawen's translation. 
(145) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the king. His acts alone are supposed to suffice 
to make the day auspicious. So far, at all events, 
the Babylonian Sabbath can hardly be called a 
popular institution. In the next place this tab- 
let, far from regarding the Sabbath as a day of 
religious Observance, expressly states that no 
sacrifice may be offered on this day before even- 
ing, nor are the oracles to be consulted. The 
conception of the Sabbath is rather that it is an 
evil and an inauspicious day {dies ater^ as the 
Romans called it). The two saHent features of 
the Hebrew Sabbath — its specifically religious 
nature as a day sacred to Jahveh, and its joyous 
character as a popular religious festival — are 
wholly absent in this description. Like the He- 
brews, the Babylonians seem to have reckoned 
their Sabbath first as a day of the month, deter- 
mined by the phases of the moon, later as a day 
of the week. Much more important is the ques- 
tion whether it was from Babylonia that the 
Hebrews derived their wise custom of resting 
one day in seven from every form of manual la- 
bor. The names which the Babylonians applied 
to their seventh day — Sabattuv, '' day of rest " ; 
Sabattuv Hm nuh libbi, '' day of rest of the heart " 
— renders this supposition probable. Ihering, 
on the strength of this name, considering also the 
vast number of slaves employed in Babylonia on 
public works, to whom a day of rest would be 
necessary, and remembering that the Hebrew 
Sabbath was originally a day of rest rather than 
of reHgious observance, believes that the incom- 
parable blessing of one day of rest in seven was 
gained for mankind by the needs of the laborer 
rather than by religion or the fancies of astrolo- 



V 



Hebrew Sabbath 



gers.* The Hebrews evidently derived their Sab- 
bath as a division of time, along with the week, 
from Babylonia. From the same country they 
may have learned to regard the Sabbath as a day 
of rest. But the peculiar religious and social sig- 
nificance which this day acquired among the 
Hebrews, we should look for in vain among any 
other nation. 

This tablet corroborates the general position 
taken throughout our discussion. The Israel- 
ites certainly did not borrow their Sabbath from 
the Babylonians at the time of the Exile, f It 
is part of the common heritage, one of the old 
family traditions they held in common. But it 
is due to Israel and not to Babylon that this old 
Sabbath, this '' Rest of the Heart," has become 
the '* day of rest and gladness," — a blessing to 
the whole world. 

* Ihering's argument seems to me strengthened by the fact 
that no work was performed by slaves during the Roman Satur- 
nalia. Cf. note on page 144. 

f This one fact ought to caution critics against insisting on too 
late a date for the introduction into Israel of other Babylonian 
customs and traditions. 



(147) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Eight: 
Adam and Eve 

WE pass now from the first account of Cre- 
ation to the second, from the Priestly 
Writer to the Jehovist. The Jehovist's account 
begins in the middle of the fourth verse of the 
second chapter. It describes the creation of the 
world, though in a brief and fragmentary way, 
until it reaches the creation of man. Then the 
narrative expands and becomes picturesque and 
striking. Mankind is ushered on to the stage of 
the world, not in a mere abstract phrase, as in the 
first account — '' male and female created he 
them " — but as a particular man and a particular 
woman, his wife. The characters of this man and 
woman are drawn, their motives and feelings are 
taken into account. That is the reason why 
Adam and Eve have been seriously accepted as 
our first parents by so large a part of the world. 
They are living beings like ourselves. Their im- 
pulses, their desires are human. That is why we 
can claim kinship with them. And all this is due 
to the literary art and the deep religious feeling 
of a very great writer whom we have already 
called the Jehovist. As soon as man appears his 
moral life begins. His physical environment 
also is taken into account. It is happy, delicious, 
pure, innocent, and altogether lovely. The 

(148) 



Jehovist's Story of Creation 

Jehovist has evoked for us that dream of the 
springtide of earth to which the whole world 
has turned with delight, when all was fresh, new, 
unused, when sin did not exist, but man, a 
pure being, dwelt with his virgin wife in a 
garden of God's own planting, enjoying God's 
presence and favor, surrounded by peaceable and 
friendly animals. At last sin entered in, or at 
least disobedience and discontent, and man was 
driven out of the garden of Eden to begin his in- 
finite labor with the world and with himself. 

It is not necessary, after what has been said, to 
show at length that this is indeed another author, 
and an entirely independent account. Everything 
points to this conclusion. The dry, majestic style 
of the first chapter, which ignores particulars, 
instantly becomes graphic, minute, and familiar. 
God fashions man and animals out of clay. He 
breathes into the man's nostrils His living breath, 
takes a rib or a side out of Adam and closes up 
the cavity; He brings Eve to him — all very 
much more naif. The name for God is changed. 
Instead of Elohim, in these two chapters we have 
Jahveh Elohim, then afterward merely Jahveh. 
I may say, in passing, that this expression, Jahveh 
Elohim, is a very unusual one, not used else- 
where in the Pentateuch."^ The reason for the 
transition appears to be this: If the Book of 
Genesis passed abruptly from one name of God 
to another without a word of explanation, it 
would have given rise to a good deal of scandal. 
People would have supposed two deities had been 
at work, one described in the first chapter, named 
Elohim, and another in the second chapter, 

* Except Ex. ix. 30. 
(149) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

named Jahveh. These two names must be 
brought into some connection, otherwise every 
reader would stumble.* Accordingly, in these 
two chapters (the second and third) the two 
names are brought into the closest connection 
by being written together. Then, after it has 
been plainly shown that Jahveh and Elohim are 
the same being, the Elohist writers are allowed 
to go on speaking in the name of Elohim, 
and the Jehovist writer in the name of Jahveh. 
This is the work of the Redactor, or Editor, 
who united the different documents of the 
Pentateuch and gave them some semblance of 
unity. 

Before we say anything more about this 
second account of Creation, let us have it as 
nearly as possible in the writer's words. 

Chapter ii., v. 4^: On the day when Jahveh Elohim made 
the earth and the heavens. t 

5, 6, 7. Not a shrub of the field was yet upon the earth, 
not a herb of the field had yet sprouted, because Jahveh 
Elohim had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth, 
and there was not a man to cultivate the ground: but a 
thick cloud rose up from the earth and watered all the 
surface of the ground. And Jahveh Elohim formed man 
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils 
[literally, blew into his nose] the breath of life, and so 
man became a living soul.^: 

* Dillmann. 

f An unusual order, which shows that the author's interest is 
centred on the earth ; in fact, he says nothing further of the 
heavens at all, and yet his account originally must have described 
the creation of heavenly bodies, which was omitted here either 
because it had just been said before, or because, it contradicted 
what was said before, 

X This may have been suggested by the fact that the Hebrew 
word for man is Adam, and the word for ground is Adama, 
so man would naturally be thought of as coming from the ground, 
belonging to the soil, very much Hke the Latin homo, humus. 
Unfortunately this tempting derivation cannot be accepted 

05^) 



Site of the Garden of Kden 



8. And Jahveh Elohim planted a garden in the East, in 
the land of Loveliness [or, in Eden].* And he placed there 
the man he had formed. 

9. And Jahveh Elohim made to shoot from the ground 
every tree pleasant to the eye and good to eat; f and the 
Tree of Life in the middle of the garden and also the Tree 
of the Knowledge of good and evil.t 

10. II, 12. A river came out of Eden to water the garden, 
and from that point it divided to form four branches. The 
name of one [branch] is Pison; it is thr.t which encircles 
all the land of Havilah where the gold is found. And the 
gold of that land is good; there is found also the bedolach 
and the shoham stone.§ 

13, 14. And the name of the second river is Gihon; it is 
that which circles all the land of Cush. And the name of 
the third river is Hiddekel: it is that which flows before 
Assh^ir. And the fourth river is the Phrath. 

r shall say but a word in regard to the situation 
of Paradise or Eden. Men have been trying to 
find it for thousands of years and have looked 
for it everywhere, from an island in the Persian 
Gulf to the North Pole; || but they are not able 
to make it stay where they put it, since new 

(Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann), and no satisfactory etymology for 
Adam has yet been found. 

* The word Eden means comfort, delight, bliss. The He- 
brews knew several places called Eden, but there is nothing 
whatever to connect them with this garden. By placing Paradise 
in the East, the author gives a hint that the myth itself came 
from the East. 

f Only trees are mentioned, not herbs nor vegetables. Man is 
conceived at this time as living on fruits and nuts. Our teeth 
tell the same story ; they were made for fruits and nuts, not to 
tear flesh. 

I These are miraculous, divine trees, such as grow only on 
the soil of faith. They help to show that this is a supernatural 
garden, a wonderful garden of God. 

§ Bedolach is supposed to be a gum Hke amber. The shoham 
stone has been identified with the beryl, the emerald, and the 
onyx. This verse interrupts the sense and seems to have been 
interpolated. 

I " Paradise Found : The Cradle of the Human Race at the 
North Pole." William F. Warner. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 
1886, 8th ed. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

scholars are constantly contending for new lo- 
cations. What is the reason that Eden is so 
hard to locate? It seems to be described with 
much precision. The trouble is, it is like the 
country on which the end of the rainbow rests ; 
it recedes as we advance. It would appear 
either that our author wrote without the least 
knowledge of foreign geography or that he did 
not wish to identify this Garden of God with 
any known country; or, as seems to me most 
probable, that he was influenced by several con- 
flicting traditions. Where should we find a spot 
from which one vast river branches into four 
channels that encircle whole lands? Two of 
these rivers are perfectly well known. They are 
the Tigris and Euphrates (Hiddekel and Phrat), 
which rise in the mountains of Kurdistan, and 
now unite perhaps a hundred miles above the 
Persian Gulf. Between them lie the plain of 
Assyria to the north and Babylonia to the south. 
When our author speaks of the Hiddekel or Tig- 
ris flowing before Asshur, he is perfectly correct, 
only it is the old city of Asshur on the west bank 
of the Tigris below Nineveh that he has in mind. 
The Phrat, or Euphrates, he does not identify, 
because it was too well known to need identifica- 
tion. The Gihon and the Pison, which he also 
describes as large streams encircling whole lands, 
have never been absolutely identified. Nor has 
Havilah, through which the Pison flows; but 
from the way in which he speaks of Havilah as 
the country whence come fine gold and precious 
stones, one would think either of India or of 
Arabia. As Arabia possesses no large river, on 
the whole we should identify the Pison with the 



The Four Rivers of Eden 



Indus or the Ganges, preferably with the Indus ; 
and this view is somewhat strengthened by the 
fact that in the order named in Genesis the 
Pison is the easternmost river. That the old 
Hebrews themselves had no clear idea where 
Havilah was, is shown by the fact that in the same 
chapter of Genesis (the tenth) Havilah is called a 
descendant of Japhet and a descendant of Shem. 
Similarly, when our author speaks of the Gihon 
flowing around the land of Gush, we should 
naturally think of the African Gush, and hence 
the Gihon would be the Nile. 

The conception of our author appears to be 
something like this. The garden of Eden, the 
first centre of life and vegetation and beauty, is 
the source from which all the life-giving rivers 
flow. To our author, the four great rivers of the 
world are the Tigris and Euphrates, which he 
knows very well, the Nile, and perhaps the 
Indus, of which he has heard, but of whose 
courses he has only the vaguest idea. So he 
conceives of one great stream issuing from Eden, 
whose waters divide and form the four chief riv- 
ers of the world. I do not insist on identifying 
the Pison with the Indus, but of the other three 
rivers we are practically certain.* 

Now let us go on : 

15, 16, 17. Jahveh Elohim took the man and placed him 
In the garden of Eden to cuhivate it and to keep it. And 
Jahveh Elohim- commanded the man, saying, " Of every 
tree in the garden thou mayest eat, but of the Tree of the 

* I have not felt it necessary to reproduce Friedrich Delitzsch's 
arguments as to the site of Eden. Interesting as they are, they 
seem to me inconclusive. His book, however, is a very valuable 
one. Its well-known title is " Wo lag das Paradies?" (Leipzig, 
1881). 



(153) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat, for on the 
day that thou shalt eat of it thou shalt die of death " [liter- 
ally, dying, thou shalt die]. 

i8. And Jahveh Elohim said, " It is not good that the 
man should be alone: I will make him a help like himself." 

19. And Jahveh Elohim formed out of the earth all the 
animals of the field and all the fowls of the air, and He led 
them to the man to see how he would name them, and 
according as the man named a living creature, that was to 
be its name. 

20. And the man called by name all cattle, all fowl of 
the air, and all wild beasts of the field, but for man found 
He among them no help like to him. 

21. And Jahveh Elohim made a deep sleep to fall upon 
the man, and he slept. He took one of his ribs [or one of 
his sides], and He closed up the place with fiesh. 

22. And Jahveh Elohim built up the rib [side] He had 
taken from the man into a woman, and He led her to the 
man. 

23. And the man said, " This is this time [now, at last] 
bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called 
woman [isshah], because she was taken out of man [ish]." 

24. This is why the man shall leave his father and his 
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be only 
one flesh. 

25. And both of them, the man and the woman, were 
naked and they were not ashamed. 

This is the first of these two wonderful chap- 
ters. It is a chapter full of interest, but at the 
same time it abounds in difihculties, and, unfor- 
tunately, there is no simple thread we can seize 
on here to guide us through the labyrinth. The 
chief difficulty is this : The first chapter of Gen- 
esis, in spite of its sublimity and grand sense 
of proportion, was written by a man of great 
simplicity of thought and of style. He took as 
his sources the old traditions shared by the He- 
brews, Babylonians, and Egyptians, and, trans- 
forming them only so much as his religion re- 
quired, he gave them to us in a form in which we 
could partially unravel them. He was in all re- 

054) 



The Jehovist's Sources 



spects an objective writer, with whom the per- 
sonal equation counted for little. But this splen- 
did Jehovist, as every verse proves, is an accom- 
plished artist. He has his sources, of course, 
and, as we shall see, he seeks them far and near; 
but with him the old material is so profoundly 
transformed to serve his ideal purposes, that its 
original form is obscured, and it is often hard to 
say where he obtained his original facts or what 
their first form was. It would appear, too, that 
he was a man of greater culture than the Priestly 
Writer and gathered his honey from many flow- 
ers. The difference between the two writers is 
almost as great as between Shakespeare and Bal- 
zac or Thackeray. The plot of one of Shake- 
speare's plays is almost always easy to assign to 
its historical source. But who, without a most 
minute knowledge of his life, can tell us where 
Thackeray got the material he put into " Vanity 
Fair," or what suggested Pere Goriot to Balzac? 
Fortunately, our task is not so difficult. In such 
a study there is a great temptation to see fancied 
resemblances where real ones are lacking. That 
seems to me just as grave an error as the old 
dogmatic method which interprets every verse 
of Genesis as if it fell from the skies. There 
is, however, no way of dissipating the cloud of 
difficulties that surround us, except by meeting 
and overcoming them one by one, or, when they 
are too strong for us, acknowledging ourselves 
beaten. Part of the comparison I am about to 
make will include the third chapter of Genesis, 
the description of the Temptation and the Fall, 
but we are so familiar with the story that we shall 
have no difficulty in following it. 



(155) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

I have mentioned several times the decided dif- 
ferences and contradictions between these two 
accounts of Creation in regard to the order in 
which the various parts of Nature came into 
being. It is not necessary to go over all that 
again, but there is one physical contradiction 
which is very important, and which, if followed 
up, will yet throw much light on the origin of this 
second narrative. In the first account, as we 
have seen, the world is conceived as rising out of 
the water. In fact, at first it is covered by water, 
water surrounds and drowns it, and only after 
the waters, which are conceived as everywhere, 
above as well as below, are separated by the firm- 
ament, can the earth appear at all. Water, of 
which there is too much, is conceived as a hostile 
element ; it is personified by monsters like Tiamat 
and Rahab and Leviathan, which must be killed 
and put down before the world can be created. 
In short, it is the conception of a maritime peo- 
ple, or, more probably, of a people dwelling be- 
side some great river whose freshets constantly 
menaced their lives and property, and whose 
waters they must draw off into other channels, as 
Marduk is described as drawing off the sea. 

In the second account, however, we find the 
very reverse of all this. Everything here speaks 
of the scarcity of water. Water is regarded as 
a friendly element. '' Not a shrub of the field 
was yet upon the earth, not a herb of the field 
had sprouted, because Jahveh Eloliim had not 
caused it to rain upon the earth." The phenom- 
enon of rain and moisture is accounted for in an 
entirely different way. Our author says nothing 
about the firmament that holds the heavenly 

(156) 



Water a Friendly Element 

waters. He accounts for rain (at least, it is hard 
not to believe that he has rain in mind) in a most 
rational manner. '' But a thick mist rose up from 
the earth and " watered all the surface of the 
ground." That seems to describe the formation 
of an atmosphere quite in the spirit of modern 
geology. He carries his point of view so far 
that he does not mention*the creation of fish or 
water animals at all. Paradise (the Garden of 
Eden) is a kind of oasis in the desert, from which 
flow the four great rivers that give life to the 
chief nations of the earth. Outside of Paradise 
the earth produces nothing but thorns and 
thistles. It is hard to cultivate and difficult to 
wrest food from. In short, the birthplace of 
this tradition was not Babylonia, overflowed 
yearly by two great rivers, where the water was 
an enemy rather than a friend and the soil so 
fertile that one had hardly to scratch it to re- 
ceive a crop, where alone in the world wheat 
grows wild; but the birthplace of this tradition 
must be looked for in a very different locality, in 
an inland country and probably in a desert like 
Arabia, or in a country surrounded by deserts. 
I do not think scholars have weighed this fact 
sufficiently. All the Hght that Babylon as yet 
can throw on this second chapter has been 
eagerly welcomed, and it does explain something. 
But Babylonian tradition here is of far less as- 
sistance than in the first chapter, and there are 
many features of this second account which every 
scholar feels never originated on Jewish soil, and 
for which Babylonian lore fails to account. Their 
source must be looked for elsewhere. If we only 
knew where! 

057) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Passing on now to the moral and spiritual dif- 
ferences of the two accounts, we find them nearly 
as striking. In the first account, the distinctions 
between God and Nature, between God and man, 
between Nature and man and between man and 
the animals are drawn with wonderful clearness 
and precision. Elohim is in heaven. He creates 
by His word. Not so here. Jahveh is on earth. 
He creates animals and men out of clay with His 
hands, like a maker of images. Although we are 
not told that Jahveh Elohim spent all His time in 
Paradise, yet He is evidently there a good deal. 
Polytheism, of which in the first account one may 
say there is hardly a trace, shows unmistakably 
here. When Jahveh says '' The man is become 
as one of us, knowing good and evil," it is evident 
that He is not alone Hke the solitary Elohim. 

Then the whole conception of Nature is differ- 
ent. I called your attention to the fact that the 
world described in the first chapter of Genesis 
is just the plain, prosaic Nature we know to-day; 
not so in the second chapter. The garden of the 
East, in the '' land of loveliness," is a magic gar- 
den and sometimes, in the cool shadows of the 
evening, when Jahveh was heard moving among 
the trees, it must have been awful. Strange trees 
grow in it. Imagine a tree capable of bestowing 
knowledge, and a tree capable of bestowing eter- 
nal life. The last picture of vast genii or cherubs, 
half brute, half angel, and the flaming blade of a 
sword which of itself " turned every way to keep 
the way of the tree of life," is weird in the ex- 
treme. 

The conception of the animals is very peculiar. 
Not only is the talking, tempting serpent, who 



Creation of Woman 



knows so much about the secrets of God and 
whose power of speech causes the woman no sur- 
prise, entirely unHke anything else in the Bible ; 
but the whole animal creation and man's relation 
to it are conceived in a half mythical manner. In 
the first chapter, animals are created before man, 
and are simply in a general way placed in sub- 
jection to him. In the second chapter, man is 
created long before the animals, and they are 
brought to him one by one not only to receive 
their names, but plainly for the purpose of ascer- 
taining whether among them one might not be 
found to serve as a companion to man. '' And 
Jahveh Elohim said, ' It is not good that the man 
be alone: I will make him a help like himself.' 
And Jahveh Elohim formed out of the earth all 
the animals of the field and He led them to the 
man to see how he would name them . 
but for man found He among them no help like 
to him." 

Accordingly, the account passes on to the cre- 
ation of woman. Whereas, in the first account, 
man and woman, male and female, were created 
at the same time by God without any account 
being taken of their peculiar relation to each 
other, our author here describes in the strangest 
manner how woman was separated from the very 
substance of man, taken, in short, out of his side 
while he slept. That story has for time out of 
mind been ridiculed as grotesque, but those who 
ridicule it little know what they are laughing at. 
I remember once hearing Dr. McConnell say 
that at the bottom of the universe lies the distinc- 
tion of sex. It is this problem, the key to life, 
the key to man's spiritual nature and all his 



(159) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

moral and immoral actions, that our author is 
grappling with here under the disguise of this 
strange myth. If only we knew certainly what 
he washes to imply ! Following our Authorized 
Version, we are in the habit of saying that Eve 
was made of one of Adam's ribs. But, as Le- 
normant says, the word qeld elsewhere usually 
means " side," and not rib. Jewish tradition 
in the Talmud, as well as among philosophers 
like Moses Maimonides, asserts that Adam 
was first created man and woman, with two faces 
turned in opposite directions, and that, during a 
stupor, the Creator separated his feminine half 
from him in order to make her a distinct per- 
son. This conception is also found in Hindu 
mythology. Plato introduces the same idea in 
the Symposium and gives a wonderful descrip- 
tion of the androgyn, who could walk upright 
when it pleased, or else spread its eight limbs and 
roll like a wheel. He explains the attraction of 
love by the desire of these two sundered halves to 
return to their original unity. It is certainly 
singular that our Saviour should have selected 
this passage in Genesis to prove the indissoluble 
nature of the marriage bond. " Wherefore they 
are no more twain [i. e., two beings], but one 
flesh." 

Leaving this aside, however, it is a profound 
sense of woman's relation to man that led our 
author to describe her as taken out of his very 
side, and then as weaning him at once from the 
brute creation and satisfying him with her sole 
society.* In every respect the conception is pure 

* Rabbi Joshua of Laknin said : " The Lord considered from 
what part of the man he should form woman. Not from the 

(i6o) 



Man and Woman 



and satisfying. If we take the first view, that 
Adam was first both man and woman, it means 
that humanity is neither male nor female, but 
both. There is in every great man something of 
the womanly, that is, something of the intuitive, 
the mysterious, the creative, something of faith 
and love; and there are some manly qualities in 
every perfect woman. Balzac, in his most in- 
spired work, grapples with this mystery when he 
makes Seraphita both male and female ; that is, 
she impresses men as a woman and women as a 
man. Until man recognizes woman for what she 
is and learns from her the lesson of spirituality 
which she alone can teach him, he remains on 
the plane of the animal. This is wonderfully 
shown in the chapter of Genesis that we are dis- 
cussing. Adam's temptation came through Eve, 
it is true, but without her he would not have been 
Adam. For the rest, their union is not yet mar- 
riage, only pure companionship. She is not his 
slave, his chattel, nor one of many. She and he 
were made for each other exclusively. She is 
his only one, his fitting helpmeet. 

There is only one other point of comparison I 
wish to draw between these two chapters. In the 
first chapter, after men and women were created, 
dominion over the entire world was given them 
as the free and glad gift of God. " Be fruitful and 
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it," was God's 



head, lest she should be proud ; not from the eyes, lest she should 
wish to see everything- ; not from the mouth, lest she might be 
talkative ; nor from the ear, lest she should wish to hear every- 
thing ; nor from the heart, lest she should be jealous ; nor from 
the hand, lest she should wish to find out everything ; nor from 
the feet, in order that she might not be a wanderer. Only from 
the most hidden place that is always covered — namely, the rib." 

(i6i) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

command to them. This impHes the multiplica- 
tion of the human race and man's ascendancy over 
Nature by knowledge and civilization. In the 
second chapter, however, not only is the repro- 
duction of the human race unthought of in Par- 
adise, but man's domination of Nature is pro- 
hibited by God's forbidding him to eat of the 
Tree of Knowledge. When man goes forth to 
his manifest destiny to wrestle with the world 
and to overcome it, he is not accompanied with 
God's blessing, but, as a result of sin, is thrust 
out of Paradise into a sad and accursed world, 
from which all he hopes is to eat bread by the 
sweat of his brow until he dies. The very pro- 
creation of children, everywhere else in the Bible 
regarded as the highest mark of God's favor 
and blessing, is here, one might almost say, 
part of the curse. " I will greatly multiply thy 
sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou 
bear children, and thy desire shall be to thy hus- 
band, and he shall rule over thee." In the first 
chapter man is made in the very image of God. 
But in the second account, to *' become like God, 
knowing good and evil," is a sin, and, lest man 
should become more like God by gaining immor- 
tality through eating of the Tree of Life, he is 
driven out of the garden altogether. 

All this is sad and even pessimistic, but we 
should remember that the purpose of these chap- 
ters is a sad purpose. They were written to ac- 
count for the origin of human sin and their won- 
derful power is proved by their wonderful suc- 
cess. If theauthor considers even the procreation 
of children as part of the curse, it is because he 
knows that those children will inherit a corrupt 



Poetry, not History 



nature and will lead a sad and sinful life. If we 
regard these chapters as Hterally historical, there 
is much in them that naturally revolts us, but all 
this disappears when we recognize their real pur- 
pose, and it is a proof of their incomparable vigor 
and their fidelity to life that they have passed as 
actual history for so long. That they are pure 
poetry, however, we may infer from the fact that 
they inspired '' Paradise Lost." 

We have now, I hope, at least broken the ice. 
What remains is to translate the third chapter 
and explain what we can, and then to attempt to 
anchor these wonderful conceptions of Paradise 
— the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, 
the speaking, tempting Serpent, the Cherubim 
and the revolving Sword — by assigning them 
their place in the great world of human tradition. 
Unfortunately, it will be many years before that 
task can be completely performed. And yet I 
beHeve that the key to these strange conceptions 
lies buried under the ruins of some old civiliza- 
tion, if not in Babylon or Nineveh, in Egypt or 
Damascus, or still farther toward the East. Im- 
ages and stories like these are never the result 
of conscious reflection. They are the product 
of many minds, and they belong to the period 
when language and religions are still in their 
plastic, creative condition. 



(163) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Nine: 
The Garden and the Fall 

THE second and third chapters of Genesis 
are so closely connected that they may be 
said to form one story by themselves, a story 
which has had more eifect on the thought of the 
world than any other part of the Old Testament. 
This fact alone justifies us in treating it with the 
utmost seriousness. The cause must be at least 
as great as its effect. You remember how the 
second chapter ends. Adam and Eve are placed 
in the Garden in the Land of Loveliness ; (where 
that is no one knows). There they lead a pure, 
idyllic life in intimate association with God. 
How long this life continued before the Fall we 
are not told. The Book of the Jubilee says, for 
seven years. Let us now try to put all our old 
preconceptions about this chapter to one side and 
approach it as if we had never read it before and 
were deeply anxious to know what it wishes to 
teach us. 

Chap. iii. i. Now the Serpent was more crafty than any 
beast of the field which Jahveh Elohim had made. 

In attempting to account for the sources of 
this chapter I shall have something to say in 
regard to the part played by the serpent as a sym- 
bol of temptation and evil in the mythology of 
the nations. Here I will only mention the pecu- 

(164) 



Serpent not the Devil 



liar characteristics of this particular serpent. It 
will be necessary for us at once to dismiss from 
our minds the old, familiar notion that this ser- 
pent is the Devil or Satan, i.e., a spiritual being 
consciously devoted to evil, or a fallen angel. No- 
where in this chapter does the suggestion of such 
a thing occur, and, to be quite candid, the He- 
brew people had no such conception of the Devil 
or Satan before the Exile. Every allusion to 
Satan in the Old Testament is later than the Ex- 
ile. All this we can see most plainly by merely 
observing what our writer says of the serpent. 
He is not a spirit or power of the air, but simply 
a beast of the field which Jahveh Elohim had 
made. We cannot, therefore, conceive of him as 
a hostile power, Hke the Persian Angro-Mainyu, 
independent of Jahveh and opposed to Him. He 
is Jahveh's creature. In regard to his form, he 
is simply a snake, slipping along the ground 
with his head often buried in the dust. There is a 
hint given, indeed, that this was not his original 
form or mode of locomotion. What his original 
mode of locomotion was we are not told, and un- 
less his physical form had undergone a decided 
change, it would be hard for us to imagine. I 
remember how Professor Konig, of Leipzig, 
used to draw beautiful spirals on the blackboard 
to show how the serpent was able to balance 
himself on his tail before his '' fall." As a matter 
of fact, the serpent is a fallen animal, as the Book 
of Genesis states, although I do not pretend to 
say that our author was aware of it. Evolu- 
tionists tell us that the serpent was once a 
shorter and thicker reptile, provided with four 
limbs, which have almost disappeared through dis- 



(165) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

use. For reasons of his own he preferred to crawl 
through the dust by powerfully constricting his 
side muscles, so he was not allowed to keep his 
legs. The rudimentary legs, with all their bones, 
however, are still developed, and are sometimes, 
I believe, visible in young snakes. But all that is 
beside the subject. The serpent is represented 
here merely as a beast of the field without a single 
mythical trait, so far as his appearance is con- 
cerned, and if anything further is needed to 
prove this, it is found in the fifteenth verse, where 
the serpent is conceived as capable of reproduc- 
ing himself and leaving an offspring, against 
which man's well-known aversion to snakes 
wages perpetual war. 

And yet I need not tell you that this serpent is 
no ordinary snake. He is able to speak and he is 
well acquainted with the secrets of God. The 
easy way in which the serpent is introduced as a 
familiar and well-known figure is very significant. 
It is true, our author (the Jehovist) also repre- 
sents Balaam's ass as speaking. But that feat is 
regarded as something unusual, and we may say 
as a miracle, which is done not so much by the ass 
as by God, who " by the dumb ass reproved the 
madness of the prophet." His speech evidently 
caused Balaam a good deal of surprise. Nothing 
of the kind, however, occurs here. The serpent 
speaks of his own accord and against the will of 
God rather than by it. And what is strangest is 
that the serpent's power of speech does not 
startle Eve in the least. She seems to accept it 
as something perfectly natural, and at once joins 
in conversation with him. Some persons have in- 
ferred from this that all the animals in the Garden 

(i66) 



A Moral Difficulty 



of Eden were capable of speaking, like the ani- 
mals in ^sop's Fables, and we shall hereafter see 
that there is some ground for this supposition. 
The manner of introducing this speaking serpent, 
without explanation, implies that he was a more 
or less well-known mythical being. 

The way in which his character is drawn is 
also very striking. We are accustomed to think 
of him as wicked, but we are only told that he 
was wise. Not only is he wise himself, but he 
admires God's wisdom. He is drawn very con- 
sistently as a wise being without a conscience. 
Obedience to God for God's sake is an idea that 
simply does not occur to him. He is governed 
by principles of enlightened selfishness. He does 
not tempt the woman to any deed of shame. He 
does not even advise her to conceal her fault. 
He merely recommends her to do the wisest 
thing in the world, to eat of the fruit of the tree 
that will make her like God, knowing good and 
evil. 

Right here occurs one of the gravest diffi- 
culties in the whole chapter, because it is a moral 
difficulty. I have wrestled with it according to 
my strength and I must candidly admit that I 
cannot solve it. Almost all commentators, how- 
ever, solve it by ignoring it. It is this : God warns 
the man not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of 
good and evil, solemnly assuring him that on the 
day he eats thereof he shall surely die. There is 
no use in attempting to soften that expression 
into '' become mortal," or " thou shalt begin to 
die," etc. The expression is as strong and as cer- 
tain as words can make it. " In the day that thou 
shalt eat of it, thou shalt die of death." The ser- 



(167) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

pent, however, assures the woman that she shall 
not die, and apparently it is he who tells the 
truth, for both Adam and Eve, after they have 
eaten of the fruit, live for many, many years. 
This apparent falsehood weighed heavily on the 
heart of the Jewish church. In the Talmud the 
explanation given is that with the Lord one day 
lasts a thousand years, and as Adam died when 
he was only nine hundred and thirty years old, 
Jahveh kept his word to him. As I said before, 
the motive of the author in this strange state- 
ment remains to me perfectly inexplicable.* 
Now we may go on with our translation. 

1. And he said to the woman, " Did Elohim actually say, 
You shall not eat of any tree of the garden"? 

You will observe that the serpent is not al- 
lowed to make use of the holy name Jahveh, 
which, as God's peculiar revelation to His peo- 
ple, would be out of place in the serpent's mouth. 
The half-contemptuous tone of surprise he em- 
ploys is intended to rouse suspicions of God's 
goodness in the woman's mind. 

2, 3. And the woman said to the serpent, '' We do eat of 
the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the 
tree in the middle of the garden Elohim has said, ' Ye shall 
not eat it and shall not touch it lest ye die! * " 

One thought contained in this text may not oc- 
cur to many readers. Eve had not heard God 
say that. She was not yet in existence (as an indi- 
vidual) when God laid that command upon Adam. 
She had only learned of it afterward through him, 
and it will be observed that Adam, hke a good 
husband, had exaggerated the command to her 

* See, however, page 251. 

(168) 



Tree of Knowledge a Unique Conception 

and made it stricter than it really was. God had 
said nothing about touching the fruit. On Eve, 
therefore, the comrnand would not have made 
the same impression that it made on Adam. That 
may be one reason why the serpent addressed 
himself to her. Another reason may be that the 
wise serpent knew that in conquering the woman 
he would also conquer the man, whereas if he 
tempted Adam first. Eve might escape altogether. 
For, while it is not unusual to see women hold- 
ing themselves proudly aloof from the vices of 
their husbands, and warned rather than contami- 
nated by their example, rarely does one find a 
man better than his wife. 

The way in which this tree is introduced has 
given rise to much comment and it certainly im- 
plies some confusion in the mind of the writer. 
It is the Tree of Life, not the Tree of Knov/ledge, 
that is in the middle of the garden. Many schol- 
ars have thought, on this account, that originally 
there was but one tree, the Tree of Life, and that 
the Tree of Knowledge was introduced clumsily 
as "an afterthought. But I would rather believe 
that the Tree of Life was a part of the original 
tradition, and that the Tree of Knowledge, for 
which no real counterpart has been discovered 
anywhere, and which is so essential to the nar- 
rative, was the personal conception of the Je- 
hovist, which he was not able to adjust perfectly 
to the old tradition.* 

4, 5. And the serpent said to the woman, " You will in no 
wise die. For Elohim knows that in the day you eat of it 
your eyes will open and you will be like Elohim, knowing 
good and evil." 

* See Addis, *' Documents of the Hexateuch," p. 3, note i. 

O69) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

All this is planned with the utmost cunning. 
Eve, it will be observed, does not know the na- 
ture of the Tree of Knowledge. She calls it 
merely *' the tree in the midst of the garden." 
Adam, if he was enlightened himself on this sub- 
ject, like many husbands and like most parents, 
had kept Eve entirely in the dark, and with the 
invariable result. She is instructed by the temp- 
ter. Knowledge and temptation are intertwined. 
From the union with knowledge temptation be- 
comes a thousand times more formidable. See 
now with what admirable skill the serpent returns 
to his task. Having induced the woman to con- 
fess the severity of God's command, he now 
boldly invites her to break it, first by promising 
her that the penalty God has affixed to the viola- 
tion of His commandment will not happen to her, 
and so removing her fear, and then by impugning 
God's motive, accusing Him of both falsehood 
and envy, and so destroying her love and trust. 
The yielding of the woman is drawn with a mas- 
ter's hand. It is the history of every lost battle 
of the human soul. We dally with temptation, 
drawing near the forbidden object, allowing it to 
make its deepest impression on both our senses 
and our mind, while we assure ourselves all the 
while that nothing will induce us to yield; and 
then, even while we are assuring ourselves, we 
put forth our hands and eat. 

6. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and 
pleasant to the eyes, and that it was a tree to be desired to 
make one wise, and she took of the fruit and ate of it, and 
she gave some to her husband beside her and he did eat. 

For time out of mind this act has been cited 
(170) 



Adam and Eve Contrasted 



as a proof of woman's inferiority to man. How 
many books have been written on the strength 
of this story to prove the frailty and sinfulness of 
woman ! And yet in the story itself Eve plays a 
decidedly superior role to that of her husband. It 
was on her, not on him, that the serpent concen- 
trated all his seductive power. Eve yielded, it is 
true, but she yielded to an intelligence and expe- 
rience superior to her own. But what a part 
Adam plays! He leaves his wife alone to the 
mercies of the serpent. At all events, Adam is 
not subjected to his cajoling arguments. The 
serpent does not waste a word on him. He 
takes it for granted that if he can carry Eve he 
will have Adam also. And he is quite right, for 
Adam, so far as we are told, does not offer the 
least resistance. He does not bring forward a 
single argument. Apparently he does not re- 
member the command of God at all. Eve has 
only to ofifer him the forbidden fruit and he ac- 
cepts it with the greatest pleasure. And then, of 
course, he has the satisfaction of laying the blame 
of his sin on her, and even on God, who had given 
him such a wife. This picture, I believe, was 
drawn by a married man, and by one who knew 
men and women equally well. 

What follows is, perhaps, the profoundest 
touch in the whole story. 

7. Then the eyes of them both were opened and they 
knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and 
made themselves girdles. 

Up to this time it is evident that they had 
moved about with the happy unconsciousness of 
innocent children. The first object on which 



(171) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

their enlightened eyes now fall is their own na- 
kedness. The first thought their newly acquired 
knowledge brings them is the sense of their own 
shame. At the same time I want you to notice 
how closely the idea of growing knowledge is 
interwoven with the sense of guilt. The man and 
his wife perceived that they were naked, and that 
brought them shame. But it is precisely this 
perception which separates man from the ani- 
mals, and in this nascent sense of modesty we see 
the Tree of Knowledge beginning its work. 
The animals are naked and know it not. One of 
man's most rooted instincts is to cover his naked- 
ness; and low indeed must one descend in the 
scale of humanity to discover a people without 
a trace of natural modesty. Men wear clothes for 
three reasons: to protect them from the cold, 
to adorn them and give them an air of distinc- 
tion, and from a sense of modesty, reserve and 
dignity, on which a large part of character de- 
pends and which is really the deepest motive of 
all. This last was the motive that led Adam 
and Eve to make them girdles of fig leaves and 
by so doing they performed an act which no ani- 
mal has ever attempted. So these two results fol- 
low from the eating of the forbidden fruit of 
knowledge. The first great step is taken which 
in time separates man absolutely from the ani- 
mal kingdom. The man becomes self-conscious. 
Suddenly he sees himself for the first time and 
perceives his own nakedness. That inspires him 
with a sense of shame, and that shame, that felt 
want, drives him into adapting the objects of 
Nature to satisfy his needs. ^' They sewed fig 
leaves together and made themselves aprons." 

(172) 



The Arraignment of Adam 



I will merely remark here that the mention of the 
fig tree, whose pointed leaves are not well adapted 
to this purpose and which seems to be selected 
here only because of its commonness, substan- 
tiates the assertion that this narrative did not 
originate in Babylonia, for Herodotus tells us 
expressly that the plains of the Tigris and Eu- 
phrates are outside the zone in which the fig tree 
flourishes. 

8. And they heard the sound of Jahveh Elohim as He 
walked in the garden in the evening cool [literally, " to- 
ward the blowing of the day"], and the man and his wife 
hid themselves from the face of Jahveh Elohim among the 
trees of the garden. 

God's walking about the garden in the cool of 
the evening breeze is taken for granted. What is 
new is that man is not there to meet him. This 
is most naturally depicted. The first and sad- 
dest consequence of sin is that it makes us afraid 
of God. Accordingly, 

9. Jahveh Elohim called to the man and said, " Where art 
thou?" 

We need not suppose that God did not know 
behind what particular bush the man and his 
wife were hiding. He calls to the man in order 
that the man may come to Him, and so He calls 
to sinful men still, " Where art thou ? " That is 
a hard question for a guilty man to answer. But 
it is better to answer it and to come to God, even 
for punishment, than to hide from God like a 
coward and an outcast, while His eyes see 
through us all the time. 

ID. And he said, " I heard Thy voice in the garden and I 
was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." 



(173) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

That was Adam's first lie; not because he was 
naked, but because he had violated the command 
of God did he fear and hide. 

11. And He [Jahveh Elohim] said, "Who told thee that 
thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I 
commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? " 

The accusation implied in that question Adam- 
cannot at once confess or deny. This is his first 
sin. He has not the defiance or hardihood of an 
habitual evil-doer. His one thought is to shift 
the blame, like a child, to some one else, so he 
lays the responsibility on his wife and even indi- 
rectly on God Himself. How many times have 
we heard that excuse ! 

12. And the man said, " The woman whom Thou gavest 
to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat." 

God's patience and His all-searching justice 
are beautifully displayed in this interrogation. 
He patiently turns from one to the other until 
the guilt is fixed, and then the penalty is awarded 
to each without violence or wrath. 

13. Jahveh Elohim said to the woman, " Why hast thou 
done this? " And the woman said, " The serpent beguiled 
me and I ate." 

It will be observed that Jahveh asks no ques- 
tions of the serpent. He has no need to inquire 
into the serpent's motive, because, as an animal, 
the serpent is without moral responsibility. If 
a spiritual being, a devil, a fallen angel lurked in 
this serpent it would manifest itself here. How- 
ever, he is and remains nothing but a beast, hence 
he can be punished only as a beast, without ap- 
peal to a moral nature which does not exist. 

(m) 



Punishment of the Serpent 



14. Jahveh Elohim said to the serpent, " Because thou 
hast done this, cursed art thou among all cattle [or, thou art 
separated by a curse from all cattle], and among [from] 
all animals of the earth; thou shalt go upon thy belly and 
dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 

15. " I will establish enmity between thee and the wom- 
an, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall make at 
thy head, and thou shalt make at its heel." 

Two punishments are here affixed to the ser- 
pent: first a weird, sinister, degraded form and 
means of locomotion; and secondly, instead of 
friendly and intimate relationship, eternal enmity 
between the serpent and man. It appears from 
this that God looks forward to the reproduction 
of the human race as something normal and to be 
expected. In the allusion to the seed of the wom- 
an which shall bruise the serpent's head, theo- 
logians, and especially Martin Luther, have seen 
the first promise of the Messiah ; hence this pas- 
sage is called the Protevangelium. Its force, 
so far as the victory is concerned, is somewhat 
diminished by the fact that the application of 
the serpent's poisonous fang to man's heel is 
quite as deadly as the application of man's heel 
to the serpent's head. And yet there is a glori- 
ous and unmistakable promise here of man's 
eternal struggle with evil, and of man's ultimate 
victory over the power that leads him astray. 
A struggle ordained by God, as Dillmann well 
says, cannot be without prospect of success. 
Both the serpent and Eve are personally pun- 
ished because they had tempted another. Adam, 
who only yielded to temptation, is dealt with 
more mildly. 

16. To the woman He said, " I will greatly multiply thy 
pain and thy conception. In sorrow shalt thou bear chil- 



(175) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

dren: thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule 
over thee." 

Just as the serpent is punished through the 
woman whom he misled, so the woman is pun- 
ished through the man whom she led astray. 
These words do not so much seal the sad fate of 
woman as they describe her fate. In addition to 
the pains of childbirth, she is to experience pain 
through her relationship with man. She is no 
longer represented as the fresh, pure maiden 
God gave to Adam ; but she is woman as man has 
made her, a very different object. In some re- 
spects man has been woman's greatest enemy, 
for he has lived and thrived at her expense. On 
account of his superiority in physical strength, 
he has been able to enslave her. The sufferings 
of woman in savage, barbarous, and semi-civil- 
ized society can never be told. Women will carry 
the scars of that long serfdom on their hearts 
long after they have disappeared from their bod- 
ies. To all men acquainted with the history of 
the human race, the marvel must be that through 
those dark centuries of oppression and outrage 
in which women possessed no rights, even over 
their own persons and consciences, they have 
been able to preserve their spirituahty and a 
moral conscience. To me this is one of the most 
wonderful survivals in history. And yet, no 
sooner is the hand of her cruel master taken off, 
and the opportunities of the higher hfe opened to 
her, than woman shows she has preserved all her 
precious qualities of heart and mind for a genera- 
tion of men capable of appreciating them. To- 
day the long bondage is almost broken. Woman 
has again become what God in the beginning in- 

(^76) 



Mortal Fate of Man 



tended her to be — man's helpmeet, on a perfect 
equality with him. She is free to develop ac- 
cording to the needs of her nature, and the more 
freely and perfectly woman develops, the better 
for us all. And so, please God, in this genera- 
tion we may see the end of the curse that began 
on the day when it was said, '' Thy desire shall be 
to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." To 
many persons these words will seem strange and 
extravagant. Anthropologists will understand 
them.* 

17, 18, 19. And to the man He said, " Since thou hast 
hearkened to the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the 
tree of which I commanded thee not to eat, accursed be 
the ground for thy sake. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all 
the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles it shall bring 
forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. Thou 
shalt eat thy bread by the sweat of thy brow until thou re- 
turn to the ground from which thou hast been taken, for 
dust thou art and to the dust shalt thou return." 

This is a gloomy picture of lifelong struggle 
with a stubborn and rebeUious soil, and yet this 
curse has turned out to be man's chief blessing 
here below. Man has become what he is solely 
through his work. Man's mortal fate is here 
spoken of for the first time. As he comes from 
the earth, there will be a time of return to the 
earth of which he is made. Man is by nature 
mortal and was so from the beginning. Of any 
hint that man was created deathless and lost his 
immortality through sin, there is not a trace. 
Immortality is represented as a possibility com- 
ing through something outside of man — the Tree 
of Life — but to that man does not attain. 

* See, for example, H. Ploss, "Das Weib in der Natur-und- 
Volkerkunde." 2 vols., Leipzig, 1891. 



(177) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



20. The man called his wife Havvah [Life], because she 
was the mother of all living. 

Here is a slip ; one might say an anachronism. 
At this time not only was Eve not a mother, but 
neither Adam nor she knew what fatherhood 
or motherhood is. 

21. And Jahveh Elohim made for Adam and his wife 
coats of skin and clothed them. 

God respects this newly found modesty and 
protects it, or perhaps warmer garments were 
needed in the cold world into which they were 
about to be driven. We need not suppose from 
this, howevei, that Eden lay at the North Pole, 
as skins formed the dress of primitive man even 
in mild regions.* The first animal that was killed 
died for the sake of man. 

22. 23, 24. And Jahveh Elohim said, " Behold, the man 
has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, but 
now, that he may not stretch out his hand and take of the 
Tree of Life and eat and live forever! " And Jahveh Elo- 
him drove him out of the garden of Eden that he might 
cultivate the ground out of which he was taken. So He 
put out the man, and He placed to the East of the garden 
of Eden Cherubim and the framing blade of the sword 
which turns to keep the way of the Tree of Life. 

This is one of the most curious passages in the 
entire chapter. Jahveh is apparently much more 
jealous of the Tree of Life than He is of the 

* Brugsch calls attention to a native tribe in the interior of 
Africa, the Monbutter, who still wear aprons made of palm 
leaves, while their near neighbors, the Niamniam, clothe them- 
selves in skins. No conclusion, therefore, as to the geographical 
site of Eden can be drawn from the mention of fig leaves and 
skins in Genesis. On ancient Egyptian monuments the figures 
of distinguished men are frequently represented as clad in skins. 
See " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," ch. 4. 

(n8) 



Jahveh Guards Tree of Life 

Tree of Kowledge. Man is already like God, or, 
we are here justified in saying, like the gods in 
knowledge. If he should eat of the Tree of Life, 
he would become altogether like God in that he 
too would live forever. That is plainly what God 
fears, and that is the real reason why man is 
driven out of Paradise. But why did not man 
eat of that incomparable Tree before? And 
why did not God lay even stricter injunctions on 
him in regard to the Tree of Life than in regard 
to the Tree of Knowledge? It will be remem- 
bered that God never prohibited man from eat- 
ing of the Tree of Life. The reason seems to be 
this. Up to the time that man's eyes were opened 
he was too ignorant to know the value of the Tree 
of Life. He did not know life nor fear death, 
therefore he had no desire for immortality. So 
God knew that he was in no danger of eating of 
that tree. Or it may be that in the author's mind 
a profounder thought lay, that until man had 
tasted of the Tree of Knowledge it was impos- 
sible for him to taste the Tree of Life. Even that 
Tree of Life could not bestow immortality on 
man so long as he remained in his first animal 
condition of ignorance. One of these two mean- 
ings we may be sure lay at the bottom of Jahveh's 
sudden apprehension, which is not mentioned be- 
fore, and which led Jahveh not only to expel the 
man from the garden immediately lest he should 
put forth his hand and eat and live forever, but 
also to set round the Tree a double guard of co- 
lossal Cherubim and a whirHng sword of fire 
which turned every way to keep the way of the 
Tree of Life. 

A few words now on the purpose of this as- 

(179) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

tonishing story. The reason why it is so hard for 
us either to understand these two chapters or, in 
spite of their depth and charm, to give them our 
full approval, I believe is this. The purpose of 
these chapters is not a single purpose, as is 
usually assumed. On the contrary, a double 
motive runs through them. We see in them two 
conceptions, the beginning of sin and the begin- 
ning of knowledge, so closely interwoven that it 
is very difficult to disentangle them. That is why 
it is so hard for us to know just where our sym- 
pathy should be placed. The problem of knowl- 
edge is certainly there. The tree '' is to be de- 
sired to make one wise." The knowledge of good 
and evil that the man and his wife acquired by 
eating it, is not mere intuitive perception of right 
and wrong — that it is right to obey God and 
wrong to disobey Him. They had that percep- 
tion before they ate, else they would have had no 
more moral responsibility than the serpent, and 
without moral responsibility they would have had 
no sin. The first step in human knowledge is a 
glorious theme, but our joy is checked at once 
by the fact that that act was in direct violation 
of the command of God and that it was se- 
verely punished. The two conflicting motives, 
I repeat, are present in this story, and all those 
commentators and writers who ignore either the 
one or the other fail in their solution of the prob- 
lem by making it too simple. The old-fashioned 
commentators recognized only the problem of 
evil and ignored the problem of knowledge. 
Many of the more intelligent recent writers fix 
their eyes solely on the beginning of human 
knowledge and, fired by that thought, they deny 

(i8o) 



Jahveh Jealous of Man 



the tragical element altogether. According to 
them, there is no fall. Everything in this chap- 
ter points to progress, to liberty, or, at most, 
to a " fall upward," beata culpa, etc. No doubt 
the story would be simpler and to many persons 
more satisfactory were only one of these ele- 
ments present, but the fact remains that they are 
both there, and neither can be eliminated without 
doing violence to the spirit and letter of the nar- 
rative. Why, then, does our author associate so 
closely the beginning of -knowledge with the be- 
ginning of sin? There is one thing very appar- 
ent. Jahveh is to a certain extent jealous oL 
man. It cannot be denied that Jahveh misrep- 
resented to the man what the effect of eating 
the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would be. 
He conceals from man the fact that by eating the 
fruit he will become Hke God, knowing good 
and evil. Eve is indebted to the serpent for 
that information. Jahveh merely tells Adam 
that the result of eating will be immediate death, 
which is not true. This element of jealousy be- 
comes more apparent in Jahveh's fear lest the 
man should become more like Him by eating of 
the Tree of Life. That is undoubtedly one reason 
why God forbade men knowledge. He wished to 
reserve it for Himself. But coupled with this 
genuinely ancient and naive " divine jealousy " 
there is a deeper and a gentler thought that all 
the reflection in the world cannot invalidate. ''He 
that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." 
In such a world as this it is impossible to know 
good without knowing evil. The moment man's 
spiritual eyes are opened he perceives his own 
nakedness. An entirely new feeling takes posses- 



(i8i) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

sion of him. He sees himself through other eyes 
than the eyes of the flesh and he feels shame for 
the nakedness and poverty of his animal nature. 
In short, with the awakening of his soul a cleft is 
established that runs to the very foundations of 
his being. The two sides of his nature are set 
in array against each other and the struggle be- 
gins that shall never end until the spiritual, hav- 
ing gradually set itself free from the material, ob- 
tains permanent ascendancy over it. But from 
that moment man is a fallen being. He feels 
what, so far as we know, the animal does not feel, 
remorse, shame and guilt. Once set before man 
an ideal to which his better instincts tell him he 
ought to conform his life, and he can never be 
anything else than a fallen being, though it is pre- 
cisely the perception of that ideal which is the be- 
ginning of man's spiritual existence. 

It is our author's recognition of this truth which 
lies embedded in all our hearts, that has caused 
this story, so crude in some respects, so profound 
in others, to be accepted in good faith by so 
large a part of the world. Knowledge is the 
thing that man most desires. But knowledge 
seldom brings happiness. To obtain it it is nec- 
essary to sacrifice the peace and repose of a happy 
animal life. Knowledge also — and this is one of 
our author's finest thoughts — cannot be sepa- 
rated from life. In quality it is essentially moral. 
All knowledge at bottom is knowledge of good 
and evil, and man having once become wise, the 
old negative life of restful innocence is no longer 
possible. Suddenly he finds himself outside the 
old Paradise, where God did everything and man 
nothing. He is now face to face with the great, 



Life an Endless Struggle 



rude, hard world, which he must conquer and 
subjugate spiritually and materially by incredible 
labors that will never end. He must suffer and 
he must sin, but at the same time there is im- 
planted in his "breast implacable enmity for the 
whole brood of the serpent on whose head he 
will finally place his heel. He has become a man 
and never again can he sink himself in an animal 
sleep. Cherubim and a flaming sword threaten 
him with annihilation as often as he attempts to 
return to the old existence. They are set to 
guard the way of the Tree of Life, a significant 
hint that man will never find immortality or en- 
during rest in this world. I do not know that 
the conditions of our earthly struggle have ever 
been set forth in better terms than these. 

With all this the origin of evil is not explained. 
According to the plain statement of the text, 
Jahveh Elohim made the serpent, and therefore 
He alone is responsible for him. It would not 
alter the case if we regarded the serpent as Satan. 
According to the Old Testament, God made 
Satan also. But if we assume Satan to be a hos- 
tile being, independent of God, then we leave the 
pure monotheism of the Bible for the dualism of 
Persia. We rescue the goodness of God, it is 
true, but at the expense of His almightiness and 
infinity. 



(183) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Ten: 

Eden in the Mythology of the Nations 

1 SHALL now attempt to account, as well as 
I can, for some of the strange conceptions 
of the second and third chapters of Genesis. 
This, as I have said, is a very difficult task. No 
man, with the best will in the world, and possess- 
ing all the authentic knowledge at this moment in 
print, can successfully perform it. Any one who 
writes on this subject now has the melancholy 
consciousness that he is writing on the sand with 
a rising tide and that in a few years advancing 
knowledge will render what he writes almost 
worthless. At the same time it is something to 
call attention to a great problem, even if we can- 
not solve it. 

The problem of the second and third chapters 
of Genesis, as I conceive it, is something like this : 
These two remarkable chapters, although they 
bear on every verse the imprint of a great, in- 
spired mind, contain a great deal of matter that 
did not originate with the man whom we regard 
as their author (the Jehovist). These two chap- 
ters contain a number of symbolic, mythical fig- 
ures closely interwoven with the sacred narrative, 
such as the garden of Eden, the serpent, the Tree 
of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, the Cheru- 
bim and the whirling sword of fire, which are 

__ 



Foreign Elements 



freely and easily introduced without a word of 
explanation. Now the very peculiarity of 
mythical symbols of this kind is that they are not 
originally the result of conscious Hterary inven- 
tion, but belong to the unconscious, creative 
period of religion which antedates the art of writ- 
ing. Besides, several of these symbols, as we 
shall soon see, have unmistakable counterparts 
in the religious traditions of other nations. An- 
other fact is very significant. There is not only 
something strange in the sound of these chap- 
ters, which are unUke anything else in the Bible, 
but it is still more remarkable that these chap- 
ters, which so wonderfully portray the creation of 
man and try to account for the origin of human 
sin, are not once alluded to in the Old Testament. 
In many respects one would regard the third 
chapter of Genesis as the most important chapter 
of the Hebrew Scriptures. It accounts in the 
most striking way for the very difficulty with which 
all the other writers of the Old Testament are 
continually wrestling, and it is comparatively old. 
How does it happen, then, that the later prophets, 
to go no further, did not accept its solution of 
the difficulty and refer the origin of man's sinful- 
ness back to Adam? And yet the fact remains 
that outside the Book of Genesis Adam's name 
occurs only once or twice in the Old Testament, 
and that no other Old Testament writer referred 
the cause of man's sinfulness to him. The only 
reason I can suggest for this is that the prophets 
and other canonical writers, some of whom 
at least must have known this story, felt that 
it contained strange elements which did not grow 
on the soil of Israel's revealed religion, and 



(185) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

so forebore to make use of its brilliant and won- 
derful solution of the difficulty. That other tra- 
ditions of Eden, however, existed among the He- 
brews is certain, and I remind you especially of 
Ezekiel's wonderful vision,* of which I shall soon 
speak. 

I believe that there are the remains of very 
ancient traditions in these chapters ; but that the 
story itself, or even its leading motive, is merely 
one of the mythical traditions of the Gentiles I 
do not believe for a moment. On the contrary, 
we shall see to what a slight extent these tradi- 
tions help us. The motive of our two chapters, 
the real revelation of God and man which they 
contain, is the personal achievement of the di- 
vinely inspired man who penned those pages. 
That fact becomes all the more evident when we 
compare the story as it left his hands with the 
sources which, so far as we are now able to say, 
he may have employed. 

Now let us proceed to our investigation. We 
shall begin by a general comparison of the con- 
ceptions of the primitive condition of mankind 
entertained by the great cultured peoples, and 
then discuss some more striking particulars. The 
belief that the first condition of mankind was one 
of Edenic felicity is almost universal. I shall 
give only a few examples. The Egyptians be- 
lieved that the first sons and daughters of Ra, 
the sun god, came into the world happy and per- 
fect, but that their descendants gradually sank 
from their native felicity to their present state. 
To the Egyptians, the times of Ra, the centuries 
immediately following creation, were the ideal 

* For a further account of Ezekiel's Eden, see p. 221. 

(186) 



Egyptian Eden 



age. Hence the expression '' No good thing has 
been seen on earth since the days of Ra." "^ 

The Egyptians also knew of a certain land of 
wonder which they placed in the East, and which 
they always called '' the land of God." Unhke 
the Garden of Eden, this land was still accessible 
to man, and from the earliest times voyages were 
made to it. Although this country was fre- 
quently visited by Egyptian mariners, their slen- 
der acquaintance with it was not sufficient to rob 
the region of its mythical glamour. As it lay to 
the east of Egypt it was fabled to be the home of 
the light god who w^th his attendants came from 
there to the valley of the Nile. It seems to have 
owed its religious character, in part at least, to 
the nature of its products, chief of which was 
a balsamic gum of agreeable perfume, highly 
prized in the services of the temples. Hence it 
was said : '' The mountain terraces of the balsam 
are the precious region of the land of the god." 
This land lay somewhere on the southern coast of 
the Red Sea. A papyrus of King Rameses Hl.f 
informs us that he sent the ships of his fleet to the 
lands of God on the shore of the Red Sea to col- 
lect specimens of all the wonderful and precious 
products of the country. From the enumera- 
tion of these products, which include, in addition 
to gold and incense, elephants, giraffes, ebony, 
etc., it would appear that this favored land was 
not in Arabia but on the eastern coast of Africa 
(Brugsch thinks between Abyssinia and the old 
harbor of Berenice) ; in short, in the region which 

* Maspero : " Dawn of Civilization," p. 158, note 3. 
f Papyrus. Harris, No. i. British Museum. Quoted by 
Brugsch. 



(187) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the Biblical writers called Cush, not far from 
some of the sources of the Nile. This being the 
case, it is not improbable that the Hebrews were 
influenced by the Egyptian tradition to regard 
the Nile as one of the rivers of their Garden of 
Eden. At all events this theory offers a reason- 
able explanation for the association of Eden with 
the Nile and the land of Cush, which has had such 
a confusing effect on sacred geography.* The 
site of the Garden of Eden, in other words, may 
be a compromise between the Babylonian and 
the Egyptian traditions of paradise. These tra- 
ditions being geographically irreconcilable, we 
cannot wonder that the Garden of Eden is so 
hard to find. These allusions to an Egyption 
paradise, however, contain no allusion to a 
" Fall," and, in fact, the Egyptian '' Land of 
God " bears hardly any resemblance to the Gar- 
den of Eden. 

Among the Aryan peoples this belief took defi- 
nite form in the tradition of the Four Ages of 
the World, and from the fact that it is found 
among the Hindus and Persians as well as among 
the Greeks and Romans, it is evident that the 
legend is very old — older, possibly, than the sup- 
posed separation of the Aryan peoples. 

In the laws of Manu it is asserted that the his- 
tory of humanity runs through four ages, con- 
sisting altogether of 12,000 divine years, or 
4,320,000 human years. First comes the Krita 
age, the age of perfection, when all religious 
duties were perfectly fulfilled. Then follows the 
Trita age, the triple sacrifice. The third is the 
Dvapara age, the age of growing doubt and con- 

* See Brugsch, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," ch. 3. 

(188) 



ZOROASTRIAN GeNESIS 



fusion as to religious duties, and lastly the Kali 
age of general perdition in which we are now liv- 
ing and which will end in the destruction of the 
world. In the Krita, or first age, men are free 
from disease, accomplish all their aims, and live 
four hundred years, but in each succeeding age 
by unjust gains, theft, and deceit, their life is 
shortened by one quarter and their religious 
duties become less exalted, until, in the Kali age, 
in which we are living, they live but one hundred 
years and the only virtue they can practise is 
liberality.* 

We pass next to the religion of Zoroaster. 
The plainest statement I have been able to find 
is contained in the first chapter of the Bundahesh 
or " Creation of the Beginning," which corre- 
sponds in a general way with our Genesis in at- 
tempting to give an account of Creation. It is a 
late book, to be sure, but there is no reason to 
doubt that it represents the ancient myths and 
legends of the religion.f It represents the 
whole age of the world as twelve thousand years, 
divided into four periods of three thousand years 
each. During the first period the good deity 
Ahuramazd reigns alone in endless light. Ahar- 
man at that time was in the abyss, and between 
them was empty space. Ahuramazd, by his om- 
niscience, knew of the evil one's existence, but 
Aharman, who was backward in knowledge, was 
not aware of the existence of Ahuramazd until he 
rose from the abyss and saw the light for the first 
time and all the good creatures Ahuramazd had 

* Laws of Manu, i. 68-86 ; also, Lenormant, p. 68. 
I See " Sacred Books of the East," vol. v., p. Ixxi., for a dis- 
cussion of this question. 



(189) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

created. Filled with fury, he rushed in and 
wished to destroy them all, but Ahuramazd was 
very gentle with him, and said, '' Evil Spirit, 
bring assistance to my creatures and offer praise, 
so that in reward for it you and your creatures 
may become immortal and undecaying, hunger- 
less and thirstless.'^ But the Evil Spirit shouted 
back to him, '' I will not provide assistance for 
thy creatures, I will not offer praise . . . 
and I am not of the same opinion with thee as to 
good things. I will destroy thy creatures forever 
and everlasting; moreover, I will force all thy 
creatures into disaffection for thee and affection 
for myself." So the great conflict begins that 
lasts through the remaining three periods of 
the world. During the first three thousand years 
Ahuramazd is successful. Then for three thou- 
sand years the battle wages about evenly, until 
finally, in the age in which we are now living, 
Aharman is successful all along the Hne. The 
Persian conception, however, does not end with 
the miserable thought that good is finally de- 
feated and evil victorious. At the end of this 
age comes the resurrection of the dead, and the 
utter defeat and destruction of Aharman and his 
evil creatures, who will be thrown into hell and 
burned up.* 

Among the Greeks, Hesiod, in his " Works 
and Days," also divided the history of the world 
into four ages. The first is a state of primeval 
bliss, which he calls the Age of Gold. Then 
Kronos reigned upon the earth and men lived 
without care, pain or old age. Their death was 

* The Bundahesh leaves the fate of Aharman unsettled ; the 
Zend Avesta is more decided. 

(.190) 



Four Ages of the World 



like the coming on of sleep and the soil bore 
them fruits untilled. The next age was the Silver 
Age, for it was inferior to the first, and Zeus 
speedily swept it away, seeing that the men of this 
generation waxed insolent and paid no honor to 
the gods. The third is the Brazen Age. A ter- 
rible and mighty brood of men who delighted in 
nothing but violence and war possessed the land. 
They first ate flesh. Their houses and armor and 
mattocks were of brass. In strife they slew them- 
selves, and perished without a name. After them 
are interposed the good heroes who fell before 
Thebes and Troy. And then Hesiod cries, 
" Would that I had never been born in the fifth 
generation of men, but rather that I had died be- 
fore or lived afterward, for now the age is iron. 
On the face of the world is naught but violence 
and wrong ; division is set up between father and 
son, brother and brother, friend and friend. 
There is no fear of God, no sense of justice, no 
fidelity and truth . . . and against evil there 
will soon be no aid." * This is the Iron Age. 
The doctrine of the Four Ages of the world cor- 
responds with the Book of Genesis simply to this 
extent. The world at the beginning was created 
good and the first human beings, as we shall see 
more fully, were good and happy. But in all 
these Aryan myths there is a constant trend of 
degeneration in the very nature of things which 
causes the world and man to grow worse and 
worse, until in the end they are destroyed. Of 
that gloomy doctrine of fatalism in Nature there 
is in the Old Testament hardly a trace,t and we 

* J. A. Symonds : " Greek Poets," i. 174. 

f The nearest approach to the doctrine of the Four Ages 



(191) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

may very well explain the resemblance I have 
mentioned by the natural tendency of the human 
mind to idealize the past at the expense of the 
present, without supposing that the Ayran doc- 
trine of the Four Ages and the Hebrew doctrine 
of the Fall have any direct connection. 

Let us then come a little nearer. Among all 
the Aryan religions, as we have already seen, the 
one which stands nearest the religion of the Old 
Testament in its monotheistic and moral ideals 
is the religion of Zoroaster, from which in later 
times the Hebrews borrowed a good deal. The 
sacred books of Persia have a great many allu- 
sions to a first man, who is generally called Yima. 
He unites to a certain extent the characteristics of 
Adam and of Noah. He is represented as living 
at first in a kind of Eden or Paradise, but, after a 
long and blameless life, he begins to give way to 
the assaults of the Evil One. He commits sin, 
which descends to his posterity, and he comes 
under the power of the serpent, the creature of 
Aharman, in consequence of which he is expelled 
from Paradise and dies in horrible torments. 

The story begins by Zoroaster's asking Ahura 
Mazda who was the first mortal with whom he 
conversed and to whom he taught the true re- 
ligion, and he answers, " The fair shepherd 
Yima." Ahura Mazda offers to make Yima the 
teacher of his religion to men, but Yima declines 
on the ground that he was not born for that pur- 

whicli can fairly be discovered in the Hebrew Scriptures is the fol- 
lowing : I. The Golden Age of Eden's felicity. 2. A period of 
degeneration and shortening life ended by the Flood. 3. From 
the Flood to the " Day of Jahveh," i.e., the destruction of the 
world by fire. 4. The Millennium, in which the Golden Age re- 
tnrns to earth. This scheme, however, is of late origin. 

(192) 



The Reign of Yima 



pose. Ahura Mazda then says to him, " Since 
thou wilt not consent to be the preacher of my 
rehgion, then make my world to increase and 
grow. Consent to nourish, rule, and watch my 
world.'' This he undertakes, and under the sway 
of Yima three hundred years pass away, and the 
earth becomes replenished with flocks and herds 
and men and dogs and birds, and with red, blaz- 
ing fire, until there was no more room for flocks 
and herds and men. Yima therefore bores a hole 
in the earth and with the help of the Earth Spirit 
makes the earth one-third larger than it was be- 
fore. This happens several times. Ahura Mazda 
then warns Yima of a series of terrible winters 
that are about to come to the earth, in which the 
tops of the highest mountains will be covered by 
snow. Ahura Mazda instructs Yima, therefore, 
to make an enclosure, a shelter about two miles 
square, and to bring into it the seed of all good 
plants, animals and men, and of fire, in order to 
preserve it alive. Minute instructions are given 
in regard to the construction of this enclosure 
and great care is taken in selecting the different 
seeds.* Further it is said that in the reign of 
Yima every duty was fully performed by the aid 
of the sacred fires.t His feHcity is described in 
glowing terms. He took away from the demons 
both riches and welfare, fatness and flocks. In 
his reign food and drink were never failing for 
living creatures. Flocks and men were undying ; 
waters never dried up. There was not the cold 
wind nor the hot wind, neither old age nor death. 
But at the end of a thousand years Yima began 
to yield to the attacks of the tempter and to learn 

* Vendidad, ii. f Yast, v. 



^3 (193) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

to speak a lie.* Then, in the fine language of the 
Zend Avesta, '' his glory was seen to fly from him 
in the shape of a bird." At each new sin another 
glory departs and, seeing them fly away, Yima, 
the good shepherd, trembled and was in sorrow 
before his foes, f He loses his immortality and 
meets a terrible death. 

In the Bundahesh X another very curious story 
is told, this time of a first human pair who are 
called Mashya and Mashyana. They are de- 
scribed as growing together from the stem of 
one plant, at first united from the waist and then 
separated much as the Talmud describes the sep- 
aration of Adam and Eve. This change is cu- 
riously described. '' They both changed from 
the shape of a plant into the shape of a man, and 
breath, which is the soul, went spirituallv into 
them." 

*' Ahura Mazda spoke to Mashya and Mash- 
yana, ' You are man, you are the ancestry of the 
world, and you are created perfect in devotion by 
me. Perform devotedly the duty of the law, 
think good thoughts, speak good words, do good 
deeds, and worship no demons.' Both of them at 
first thought this, that one of them should please 
the other, and the first deed done by them was 
this, when they went out they washed themselves 
thoroughly, and the first words spoken by them 
were these, that Ahura Mazda created the water 
and earth, plants and animals, the stars, moon 
and sun. . . . But afterward antagonism 
rushed into their minds and their minds were 
thoroughly corrupted, and they exclaimed that 
the Evil Spirit had created the water and earth, 

* Bundahesh, xvii. 5. f Vast, xix. 31-38. X Chap. xv. 
(194) 



Mashya and MashyanA 



plants and animals . . . and through that 
false speech they both became wicked. . . . 
And they had gone thirty days without food, 
covered with the clothing of herbage (leaves), 
and they went forth into the wilderness and came 
to a white-haired goat and milked it." Then 
they became bolder, and having found a sheep, 
'' fat and white-jawed," they killed it and made 
the first fire and roasted its flesh. " And they 
dropped three handfuls of meat into the fire, and 
said, * This is the share of the fire.' One piece 
of the rest they tossed into the sky, and said, 
* This is the share of the angels.' A bird, a vul- 
ture, advanced and carried some of it away from 
them ; as a dog they ate the first meat. And first 
a covering of skins covered them ; afterward, it is 
said, woven garments were prepared from a cloth 
woven in the wilderness," In consequence of all 
this, they grew worse and worse, until finally 
they advanced against each other and smote and 
tore their hair and cheeks, and the demons be- 
came so bold that they shouted to them out of the 
darkness, " You are man ; worship the demon so 
that the demon of your maUce may repose." 

The particular points of resemblance to Gene- 
sis in this later story are that man and woman are 
created together by a good God, who laid right- 
eous commands upon them, which they broke by 
yielding to the temptations of the devil. After 
their creation the breath of life is infused into 
them. They are represented immediately after 
their first sin as clothed with leaves or herbs, and 
later as clad in skins. In the story of Yima, man's 
first happy and sinless estate is lost by sin and sin 
brings death. What is important in both stories 



(195) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

is that Yima and Mashya and Mashyana are 
created happy and good by a good God. Moral 
injunctions are laid on them which they disobey 
at the instigation of evil beings, and in conse- 
quence of this sin and death enter the world and 
their posterity become more and more sinful. Al- 
though there are no close or striking verbal co- 
incidences between these stories and Genesis, it 
is plain that they are narratives of the same order, 
in that they both explain the beginning of human 
sin in a similar way. It is also significant that the 
Persian creation story contains an account of a 
world destruction modified to suit the Persian 
climate.* 

We pass then to Babylon, in whose literature 
we should expect to find more striking resem- 
blances to our narrative. In this expectation we 
shall, to a certain extent, be disappointed. We 
shall see some curious parallels, but anything as 
complete and as overwhelming as the parallel to 
our account of the Flood we shall not find. It 
does not follow, however, because no very com- 
plete parallel is in our hands now that one will 
never be discovered. Before these chapters are 
finished, the very thing that scholars are looking 
for may be found. Of the innumerable inscrip- 
tions buried in the cities of Babylonia and As- 
syria only a few thousand have been recovered, 
and not all of those have been deciphered. We 
have not even a detailed account of the Creation 
of man, although it is certain that such an ac- 
count must have existed, so we need not despair 
if we have not yet a satisfactory description of the 

* It is not impossible that the Bundahesh was influenced by 
Genesis. ^^^^^ 

(^96) ~" 



Babylonian Seal 



Fall of man. Perhaps no such description ever 
existed, though in the face of the suggestive hints 
we have already in our hands it is hard to believe 
that. I will begin what I have to say with a 
few words on the two old seals, drawings of which 
will be found on pp. 198 and 202. The first draw- 
ing represents an early Babylonian seal now in 
the British Museum and first made public, so far 
as I know, by George Smith in his '' Chaldean 
Account of Genesis." This is probably the most 
famous of all the seals taken from Babylonia, and 
a great deal has been written about it. Although 
its allusion to a story of a ''Fall" is now generally 
doubted by Assyriologists, I cannot forbear to 
state the argument. When this seal was first 
published by Mr. Smith in 1875, he expected con- 
fidently that the explanatory text would soon be 
discovered. More than twenty-five years have 
elapsed and still it has not come to light, in con- 
sequence of which scholars are beginning to be 
sceptical as to whether this seal was intended to 
represent the Fall at all. I ought to add, how- 
ever, that no other satisfactory explanation of the 
seal has yet been given. 

Let us look at it now a little more carefully. 
On either side of a tree — which, from the angle of 
its branches, the shape of the leaves, and the po- 
sition of the fruit under the leaves, appears to be 
a palm — are seated two figures. One of these 
seems to be a man and the other a woman. Each 
is stretching out one hand toward the tree as if 
to take the fruit. Behind the figure on the left, 
which is supposed to be the woman, is the undu- 
lating form of a serpent standing erect on its 
tail in an impossible attitude, with its head not 



(197) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

far from the woman's ear. This is indeed strik- 
ingly suggestive of the story of the Fall. We 
have here the tree as the central object on which 
all attention is fixed, the man, and the woman 
into whose ear the serpent seems to be whisper- 
ing his invitation to put forth her hand and eat. 
From this many scholars have inferred that a 
story of the Fall, or at least an account of the 
eating of sacred fruit by a man and a woman 
at the suggestion of a serpent, existed in Baby- 




THE SERPENT AND THE TREE 



Ionian literature. Moreover, this is not the 
only picture of this kind whose literary coun- 
terpart has been discovered. We have a picture 
of the Babylonian Noah in his ark, and we have 
the history of the Flood and the construction of 
the ark. We have many pictures of Izdubar 
strangling a lion or slaying a bull, and we have an 
account in literature of these adventures. It 
therefore seemed not unreasonable to suppose 
that this picture of the two figures and the ser- 
pent beside the sacred tree had a literary equiva- 

O98) 



Babylonian Seal 



lent in a story of temptation somewhat like our 
own. 

Against this it is urged : 

1. That no such story has as yet been found, 
nor have we yet found any account of the crea- 
tion of the first man and woman. 

2. That it is not certain that these figures rep- 
resent a man and a woman; they may both be 
men. 

3. That if this picture represents a story of 
temptation to eat a sacred fruit, in some respects 
it is not the same story as ours. Instead of repre- 
senting our first parents in a condition of prim- 
itive nudity, this picture seems to point to a 
period of considerable culture. The two figures 
are clothed from head to foot in rather elaborate 
dresses. They have hats on, or at least head or- 
naments. They are seated on benches. 

4. In any case the story is not exactly the same, 
for the figure we may call Adam is stretching his 
hand to the tree just as Eve is doing, and is not 
represented as receiving the fruit from her. 

5. Lastly, the undulating figure on the left 
can only by courtesy be called a serpent. It may 
be a mere line of demarcation. 

Several of these objections are well taken, but 
in reply to others I may suggest the following : 

I. Although there is nothing in the two figures 
that absolutely determines their sex, yet the fig- 
ure to the right, in the original, appears to be 
slightly larger than the other, and a difference of 
sex may be hinted at in the different head dresses. 
Under a strong glass the lines of the female fig- 
ure are quite plain. The man wears the mascu- 
line symbol of ox horns, such as we often see on 



(199) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Gilgamesh, and the figure we suppose to be the 
woman wears a kind of round hat which we often 
find on men and also on women.* 

2. It is true the figures are not nude, and the 
long garments, as well as the benches, imply a 
certain degree of culture; but at the same time 
I call attention to the fact that the Babylonians 
were in the habit of referring their civilization 
back to the beginning of the world. They 
seem to have preserved no recollection of man's 
pristine savagery. In Pinches' fragment, which 
attempts to depict the condition of things be- 
fore Creation, we read, '' No brick was laid nor 
any brick edifice reared, no house erected, no 
city built.'' They even went so far as to ascribe 
the art of writing to the very beginning of the 
world. In a description of chaos in the Cutha 
tablet it is said, " On a memorial tablet none 
wrote, none explained, for bodies and produce 
were not brought forth upon the earth." If 
the Babylonians ascribed the ability to write and 
to build brick houses to the first man, there is no 
reason why they should not have conceived him 
as wearing clothes, for they did not regard him as 
savage, but as civilized. I would also say in reply 
to Budde's criticism,t that nakedness and then 
clothing are introduced into Genesis with a pur- 
pose which no one would expect *to find in a 
Babylonian story. 

3. The very attitude of repose represented by 
the seated figures indicates reflection. Neither 
does it seem to me that the fact that both the 
figures are stretching their hands toward the 

* E.g-., Ishtar ; Maspero : " Dawn of Civilization." 
\ " Urgeschichte," p. 78. 

(200) 



Boscawen's Suggestion 



fruit indicates necessarily that the conception 
was wholly unhke our own. On the contrary, the 
most suspicious circumstance seems to me to be 
that it suggests a story too similar to the story of 
Genesis. How else could a picture which must 
show all in one moment have indicated that both 
were attracted to the fruit and tempted? The 
fact remains that the serpent is behind her whom 
we regard as the woman. As to the serpent, 
the undulating line, although roughly drawn, cer- 
tainly suggests this animal (it is quite as much 
like a serpent as the tree is like a tree) ; and we 
may even see in the upright and impossible atti- 
tude a parallel to our story that before the curse 
the serpent stood erect and carried his head in 
the air. 

4. Boscawen * even thinks he has discovered 
the literary account of the Fall in the third tablet 
of the Creation series, where, among the evil 
deeds of Tiamat, occurs the following : 

The great gods, all of them determiners of fate, 

They entered, and deathlike, the god Sar filled. 

In sin one with the other in compact joins. 

The command was established in the garden of the god, 

The Asnan [fruit] they ate, they broke in two. 

Its stalk they destroyed, the sweet juice which injures 

the body. 
Great is their sin, themselves they exalted. 
To Merodach their redeemer he appointed their fate. 

In absence of corroboration by other Assyriol- 
ogists, however, I am not disposed to attach 
much importance to this story, which seems to 
recount an attack on a sacred tree rather than 
a story of the Fall. We will therefore turn to the 

* " The Bible and the Monuments," p. 89. 



(201) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

other cylinder, which plainly represents a sacred 
tree guarded by genii. The sacred tree is one of 
the commonest objects of Assyrian art. Some- 
times it is depicted as a palm, sometimes as a 
cypress, and again in a purely conventional form, 
like an English Maypole. It is usually repre- 
sented as guarded by mythical figures hke the 
two genii of this illustration. Sometimes these 
figures yield to the figures of winged men, or, 
again, the form of the great god Asshur is dis- 




GENII AND THE TREE 



played above the tree. In the absence of definite 
proof it would be rash to associate any of these 
representations with the Tree of Life or the Tree 
of Knowledge. The Babylonians, however, as we 
shall see, had the conception of the Tree of Life, 
and a tree guarded by supernatural beings does 
correspond in a general way to the Tree of Life 
guarded by the Cherubim. Before considering 
the Tree of Life in Babylonian literature, I wish 
to call your attention to the wide diffusion of 
belief in such a tree in other sacred literatures. 



(202) 



Tree of Life among the Nations 

In fact, the conception is so common and its lit- 
erature so immense that the great difficulty is to 
know what to mention and what to leave out. I 
shall therefore exclude altogether such trees as 
were only regarded as sacred and as objects of 
adoration, and confine myself exclusively to the 
tree whose fruit or whose juice was believed to be 




GENII AND THE TREE 



capable of bestowing immortality. The anti- 
quity of this belief is certainly very great. It is 
found not onlyamong thevarious branches of the 
Indo-Germanic group — among the Hindus, the 
Persians, Greeks, and Germans — but also among 
the Semitic peoples. The idea, I believe, grew 
up in some such way as this. Among all poly- 
theistic nations we find the melancholy thought 
of the old age and decay of the gods. Each god's 

(203) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

personality is small and weak in the presence 
of the boundless forces of Nature, and the 
thought naturally arises that in the end they will 
overwhelm him. And that is just what hap- 
pens. Men look back and see that the gods 
worshipped in ancient times are now either 
wholly forgotten or have sunk to an inferior posi- 
tion; they are seldom worshipped and they re- 
ceive few gifts to keep them aUve and strong. 
So the conviction arises that the gods, Uke men, 
are in danger of dying, and that they require food 
and drink to sustain them in life. Closely con- 
nected with this conception of the gods is the fact 
that on earth certain trees or plants yield a fruit 
or a juice which has the strangest effect upon 
men, arousing in them in a mysterious manner 
ecstasy and new strength, and supplying them 
with new thoughts and feelings. By men totally 
ignorant of physiology, these mysterious pheno- 
mena of intoxication are believed to come from 
the gods, and the plant that invariably produces 
this condition is regarded as a divine plant. 
Either by partaking of the libations men offer on 
earth, or because they possess a heavenly plant 
corresponding to this earthly one, the gods are 
able to retain their immortality. 

Among the Hindus the plant that yielded their 
favorite beverage was the Soma plant, therefore 
it was regarded as the plant of immortality. But 
it is easy to see in the minds of an imaginative 
people like the Hindus to what a variety of ob- 
jects this idea is capable of being applied. The 
earth sometimes becomes parched, the plants and 
flowers wither. Then the refreshing and fertiliz- 
ing rain falls and the earth is green and living 

(204) 



The Soma Plant 



again. The rain is the Soma plant brewed by 
the cloud gods, and by it the earth retains her 
immortality. The moon waxes and wanes, some- 
times it disappears altogether. It is evidently 
worn out and exhausted. It requires a fresh 
supply of this liquor of immortality and then it 
will grow young again. By such a train of 
thought, I believe, is the Soma plant in the 
Rig Veda so closely connected with rain and 
the moon. We can see plainly that one draught 
of this divine juice is not enough. Its effects 
pass away like the effects of alcohol. The gods 
must constantly drink or eat to keep their eter- 
nal youth. In the Germanic myth, after Loki 
has carried away Iduna and her apples to the 
abode of the giants, the other gods soon become 
gray-headed and old and lose all their vigor. 

There is no commoner idea in the Rig Veda 
than that of the virtue of the Soma plant, to 
which, as to a divine object, innumerable prayers 
are offered, whose fundamental thought is the 
desire for life and immortality. 

The Soma streams, the begetter of thoughts, the begetter 
of heaven and earth, the begetter of Agni and the Sun.* 
O Soma, in thy power is it that we live and do not die. f 
We drank Soma, we became immortal. :j: 

Among the Persians we encounter the same 
word and the same idea in the Haoma plant, only 
the idea is less expanded because Ahura Mazda 
has risen out of the sphere of natural deities and 
is self-existent and self-sustaining. Yet in the 
Zend Avesta the worship is centred around the 

* Sama Veda, i. 614, 5. f Rig Veda, i. 91, 92. 
t Rig Veda, i. 8, 48. 



(205) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Haoma plant. By its virtues, in Yima's reign of 
a thousand years, sickness and death were un- 
known. It destroys the demons, and at the 
resurrection will confer immortality on be- 
lievers.* 

The Greeks possessed an entirely similar con- 
ception in their nectar and ambrosia. The am- 
brosia conceived as immortal food is new, and in 
the Iliad I believe Homer never speaks of the 
gods as eating ambrosia, but only as drinking 
nectar.f On this divine food the gods feast 
every day, and thereby preserve their immortal 
youth. By its healing power Aphrodite is re- 
stored after she has been wounded by Diomede ; 
Hector is healed at the command of Zeus ; Achil- 
les is secretly nourished when in sorrow he re- 
fuses to eat ; and by it Calypso offered to confer 
immortality on Odysseus. It is true that the gods 
of Greece do not seem so dependent on this life- 
giving food as the grosser Germanic deities. Per- 
haps one draught was able to confer immortality ; 
otherwise poor Prometheus, chained to the rock 
and tormented, would have been able to die. 

In Greek mythology, alongside the nectar and 
ambrosia are the golden apples of the Hesperi- 
des. On an island of the ocean to which no ship 
can penetrate, where Zeus and Hera celebrated 
their nuptials, this fruit grows in a garden of the 
gods, guarded by the dragon Ladon and the Hes- 
perides. He who eats one of these apples attains 
eternal youth. 

Both the Tree of Life and the serpent were 

* Windischmann's " Zoroast. Studien," 170 and 244. See 
Yast, ix. 17. 

t A., 585, 598- 

(206) 



Tree of Life in Egypt 



familiar mythical figures in Egypt, where they 
were very frequently associated. Among the 
trees planted in the temple precincts none was 
more sacred than the species called by Greek 
writers Persea (Mimusops Schimperi). Belief 
in the sanctity of this tree passed from the old 
Egyptian religion into Christianity. It was said 
that during the flight into Egypt, as the holy 
family were seated beneath the shade of the Per- 
sea, this good tree bowed its branches in adora- 
tion of the Saviour. Allusions to this legend are 
still to be found in hymns ancient and modern. 
To vex Christian believers, Julian the Apostate is 
said to have ordered the destruction of this tree, 
in consequence of which it has wholly disap- 
peared from the soil of Egypt, although Brugsch 
asserts it is still to be met with in southern 
Arabia. On account of its long life the Persea 
was regarded as a symbol of perennial strength 
and immortality. The Pharaohs are frequently 
represented as seated beneath its shadow. The 
heavenly overseers of the lapse of time carry the 
names of the princes to the leaves of the tree, and 
promise the fortunate monarchs eternal endur- 
ance of name and memory. 

The Arabian Mohammedans still preserve a 
tradition of the Tree of Life. They say that in 
the leaves of this tree Allah has recorded the fate 
and the length of life of every man from birth to 
the grave. When the leaf withers, the end of 
man's existence is at hand ; and when his leaf of 
the Tree of Life falls, he dies.* 

* These two statements are made on the authority of Brugsch 
Bey, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," who, as usual, gives no 
sources. 



(207) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

To complete this study I will merely add a few 
words on the Germanic and Norse mythologies. 
As we have seen, the mortality of the gods, which 
is never prominent in Greek mythology, often 
obtrudes itself in the old Germanic myths. Bal- 
der is killed, Odin's downfall is described, Thor 
falls dead on the earth.* These gods, Hke all 
the others, owe what immortality they possess 
to their food, or rather to their drink, for we are 
told that Odin required no food and drank only 
wine (the nectar of the Greeks, the Soma of the 
Hindus). Beside this nectar are the golden 
apples of Iduna, by eating which the aging gods 
become young again. One day the crafty Loki 
lured Iduna out of Asgard into a wood, pre- 
tending that he had found apples far finer than 
hers, and advising her to bring her own along 
to compare them with his. Then came the giant 
Thiassi in the form of an eagle, who seized Iduna 
and her apples and flew away with her to his 
home in Thrymheim. The gods soon became 
gray-haired and old, and would have died had 
she not returned. 

In all these myths we find a more or less perfect 
counterpart of the Tree of Life, that is to say, a 
plant or a tree whose fruit, partaken of in a purely 
physical way, is able to bestow immortality. The 
most striking difference between these mythical 
fruits (the Greek excepted) and the Tree of Life 
in Genesis is that they must be partaken of again 
and again, while apparently to eat but once of 
our tree is sufficient to Hve forever. Another 
even greater difference may seem to be that the 
Soma plant, the nectar and ambrosia, give Hfe not 

* Grimm, " Deutsche MythoL," p. 265. 
(208) 



Tree of Life not for Man. 



only to men, but also to the gods. Nothing of 
this sort is related in Genesis, and at the time 
that book was written it would have been a re- 
pugnant thought. Jehovah, the true god, is in 
no danger of dying. But in the old tradition 
from which the Tree of Life was probably taken, 
the case may have been different. At all events, 
that tree was not made for man to eat, and unless 
its Hfe-giving fruits were for God, or at least for 
those divine spirits to which Jahveh alludes in 
the phrase '^ one of us," it had no purpose what- 
ever. 



(209) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Eleven: 
Eden in the Mythology of the Nations — Continued 

BEFORE we continue our attempt to estab- 
lish some points of connection between 
the second and third chapters of Genesis and the 
literature of Babylon, there are a few representa- 
tions in those chapters which ought to be men- 
tioned. We have seen that a tree or plant whose 
fruit or whose juice bestows immortality is found 
in almost every branch of the Indo-Germanic 
family. Among the Babylonians a sacred tree 
guarded by supernatural beings is a very com- 
mon symbol in art. The most ancient name of 
Babylon in the old Accadian language (Tin-tir- 
ki) is said to signify '' the place of the Tree of 
Life." We are therefore justified in believing 
that in the Tree of Life * we have an old and al- 
most universal symbol of ethnical mythology. 

With the Tree of the Knowledge of good and 
evil it is different. We have, it is true, prophetic 
trees, and even speaking trees, like the oaks of 
Dodona, enough and to spare. One of the com- 
monest religious beliefs of antiquity was that it 
was possible to learn the will of the gods and to 
anticipate future events by the prophetic rustling 
and agitation of the leaves of a tree.t Among the 

* Lenormant, " Begin, of Hist.," p. 85. 

f Any one who wishes to investigate this subject will find a 

(210) 



Sacred Trees 



Hebrews of the Old Testament we find a good 
many examples of the same superstition. We 
read in Judges * of the *' Oak of Diviners " near 
Shechem. The angel of the Lord appeared to 
Gideon under the oak of Ophra. Deborah dwelt 
under a palm tree afterward called by her name, 
between Ramah and Bethel, where she was accus- 
tomed to deliver her judgments. Rebecca's 
nurse was buried under an oak at Bethel, which 
from that circumstance was called the oak of 
mourning, t Saul is repeatedly mentioned as sit- 
ting under a tree (probably in judgment).:}; 
David, on the eve of an important battle with 
the Philistines, consulted the mulberry trees 
near Geba, and when he heard '' a going in the 
tops," he divined that Jahveh had gone out be- 
fore him to battle, and accordingly joined 
forces.§ Somewhat of the same order of ideas 
is the '' burning bush," in which the Angel of 
Jahveh revealed himself to Moses, and we might 
easily multiply these examples. But in none of 
them should we find anything really resembling 
the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. The 
advantage to be obtained from that tree is ob- 
tained by eating its fruit, not by sitting under it, 
nor by observing the motion of its leaves, and 
the knowledge it communicates is not the per- 
ception of the presence of the Deity, nor the yes 
or no of an oracle in answer to some particular 

world of material in Fergusson's classical " Tree and Serpent 
Worship" (London, 1868), or in Gubernati's "Mythology of 
Plants." 

* ix. 37. Wrongly translated Plain of Meonenim. 

f Gen. XXXV. 8. 

i I Sam. xiv. 2 and xxii. 6, 

§ 2 Sam. V. 24. See Baudissin's "Studien," Heilige Baume. 



(211) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

question, but the permanent illumination of the 
mind in regard to moral truth, a complete and 
radical change in the nature of the man who eats. 
Of that, so far as I know, there is not a trace 
either in any other part of the Old Testament or 
in pagan literature. At present, therefore, we 
are at liberty to regard it as the original creation 
of our writer. 

I have already said something on the Serpent 
of Genesis. It remains only to add a few words 
by way of comparison. This is another of those 
figures whose counterpart exists in almost every 
literature. The fact that this is true of so many 
of the symbolic images in the early chapters of 
Genesis is in itself enough to convince us that we 
are dealing here with a literature unlike most of 
the Old Testament. We are confronted with 
ideas on which a large part of humanity has 
meditated, and it is always important to know 
what humanity has thought on any subject. 

The serpent as a mythical animal, symbolical 
of mystery, wisdom, good and evil, exists in most 
of the ancient literatures of the world. The ra- 
pidity of his movements, the brilliancy of his 
sparkling eye, his vibrating, forked tongue, his 
power of disappearing and his fatal bite have 
set him apart from the rest of the animal world, 
and have caused him to be regarded as a satanic 
or as a divine animal. Even in the Old Testa- 
ment he is not always regarded as injurious; his 
venomous character is not the only one pre- 
sented. Thebrazen serpent erected byMoseswas 
considered a sacred talisman against snake bites, 
and to it, or to a similar representation, the people 
of Jerusalem continued for a long time to burn 

(212) 



The Serpent in Assyria 



incense until it was destroyed along with other 
images by Hezekiah.* The first sign that Moses 
and Aaron showed Pharaoh was to throw down 
Aaron's magical rod, which instantly became a 
live serpent. t The Egyptian sorcerers, however, 
did the same thing. Also, when Jahveh com- 
manded Moses to throw his rod on the ground it 
became a serpent, and '' Moses fled from before 
it." But when, at Jahveh's command, Moses 
seized it by the tail, it immediately became a stick 
again.:]: Still, on the whole, the serpent is re- 
garded in the Old Testament as a type of a sinis- 
ter and injurious influence. 

Among the Assyrians the serpent is repre- 
sented usually in the same light. One species of 
serpent, at least, was called '' ai-ub-ilu "§ (the foe 
of God), whether on account of a mythological 
story connected with it, or because its poison was 
considered dangerous even to the gods, we do 
not know. We have already spoken of the sea- 
monster, Tiamat, but there is no reason to asso- 
ciate her with the serpent of Genesis. She be- 
longs to an entirely different world of ideas. 
The serpent pictured on page 198 as erect behind 
the woman, would enlighten us more if we only 
knew its history. Symbols of serpents supposed 
to be sacred are often found carved on stones or 
even on cylinders. 

The story of Bel and the Dragon occurs in the 
Apocrypha of the Old Testament. After Daniel 
has proved to King Cyrus that the food laid be- 
fore the god Bel is secretly carried away at night 
by the priests and their wives through a trap- 

* 2 Kings, xviii. 4. f Exod. vH. 10-12. % Exod. iv. 2-4. 
§ Frd. Delitzsch, " Assyr. Studien," i. 69 and 87. 



(213) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

door, Cyrus reminds Daniel that all the gods 
worshipped in Babylon are not insensible beings. 
They have there a great dragon or snake to 
which divine honor is paid. " Wilt thou also say 
that this is brass? " Cyrus is represented as tri- 
umphantly asking Daniel. '' Lo, he eateth and 
drinketh. He is a living god, therefore worship 
him." This naif argument would have em- 
barrassed some men. Daniel, however, disposes 
of it by killing the serpent, which he accom- 
plishes by forcing a lump of pitch, fat and hair 
down his throat. For this deed Daniel is thrown 
into the lions' den, where he remains six days, 
until the prophet Habakkuk is carried by an 
angel through the air by the hair of his head,* 
and cries, " O Daniel, Daniel, take the dinner 
God has sent thee." Unfortunately, every 
feature of this romance is unhistorical and no 
safe conclusion can be drawn from it. 

Among the Greeks the serpent was regarded 
as a sacred object, closely associated with several 
of the gods. In the temple of Athene in Athens, 
as late as the Persian wars tame serpents were 
kept as guardians of the temple ; they were sup- 
ported at the public expense and fed regularly 
on honey cakes. Athene is frequently repre- 
sented as carrying a staff round which serpents 
are coiled. Hermes is depicted in the same way. 
As a rule, the serpent was considered a good ani- 
mal by the Greeks, most of whose serpents were 
harmless. It is associated with ^sculapius in 
the art of healing and with Ceres as a child of the 
earth and protector of the soil, although some- 
times, as in the serpents that tried to strangle 

* See Creuzer's " Symbolik," art. Schlange. 



The Serpent in Phcenicia 



Hercules, and the serpents sent to slay Laocoon, 
its dangerous character appears. 

In regard to the position of the serpent among 
the Phoenicians, we have an extremely interest- 
ing account in the fragments of Sanchoniathon, 
preserved by Philo of Biblus : * 

Taautos [probably the old Egyptian god Thoth] first re- 
garded the nature of the dragon and the serpent as some- 
what divine, in which he was followed by the Egyptians 
and Babylonians. He taught that this animal is the most 
spirited of all reptiles and that it has a fiery nature, inas- 
much as it displays incredible swiftness, moving by its 
spirit alone, without hands or feet or any of those organs 
b:' which other animals effect their motion. And as it 
goes it assumes a variety of forms, moving in spirals and 
darting forward as swiftly as it pleases. It is moreover 
long-lived, and is capable not only of laying its old age 
oiT and assuming a second youth, but of receiving at the 
same time an increase of size and strength. And when it 
has fulfilled the appointed time of its existence it consumes 
itself, as Taautos has laid down in his sacred books, on 
which account this animal is introduced in the sacred rites 
and mysteries. . . . This animal does not die a natural 
death except when it is struck a severe blow. The 
Phoenicians call it the good demon; the Egyptians, 
" Kneph," and represent it as having the head of a hawk 
as it has the strength of a hawk. In allegorical manner 
Epius says the following: " The first among all divine be- 
ings is the serpent in form of a hawk, a beautiful animal; 
when it looks up it fills the whole ante-mundane world 
with light, when it closes its eyes darkness falls." 

I will not attempt to interpret all this, but it 
appears that the Phoenicians and the Greeks both 
borrowed their serpent worship from Egypt, 
where the cult was very old. In Egypt the ser- 
pent w^as especially sacred. It belonged to all 
the gods. Wherever a large serpent was found, 
people " brought it bread, cakes, and fruit, and 

* See Cory's "Fragments," 17 and 18, and Baudissin, op. citat., 
p. 268. 

(215) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

thought that they could call down the blessing of 
heaven upon their fields by gorging the snake 
with offerings." * On the east wall of the sanc- 
tuary of the goddess Hathor of Tentyra this in- 
scription still stands : " The sun which endures 
from the beginning, mounts Hke a falcon from out 
of the middle of its lotus bud. The doors of its 
leaves open in sapphire radiance, so it divides the 
night from the day. Thou risest as the holy ser- 
pent, creating and illuminating the ascent in thy 
glorious form in the bark of the rising sun." t 

The serpent, though frequently regarded in 
Egypt as a good animal, was by no means always 
so regarded. On the contrary, he is constantly 
described in the inscriptions, and depicted on the 
monuments as the symbol of evil and of darkness 
who strives to extinguish the light of the physical 
and moral world. In the Book of the Dead this 
struggle is depicted in a vignette which repre- 
sents an armed cat (symbol of light) contending 
with a serpent (the symbol of darkness). In this 
connection the serpent is also constantly depicted 
with the Tree of Life. An old inscription says 
that a Persea (the sacred tree) " arose in emerald 
leafage in the east of the world, at the place where 
the sun celebrates his daily ascent, on the spot 
where the daily battle takes place between light 
and darkness, good and evil." % In general we 
may say that these two inseparable figures — the 
Tree and the Serpent — represent the eternal 
struggle of life and death. The Book of the 

* Maspero, " Dawn of Civilization," p. 121. 
f Brugsch, " Religion und Mythologie der Alten Aegypter," 
p. 103. 

X See Brugsch, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," ch. 3. 

(216) 



The Serpent in Persia 



Dead promises the eternal fate of the serpent '' in 
the night of the battle and in the destruction of 
evil-doers, and in the day of the annihilation of 
the enemies of the Almighty." 

Among all these nations the serpent is re- 
garded as a sacred and often as a good being. 
Only among the Persians, in the sacred books of 
Zoroaster's religion, is the serpent always evil. 
He is there the creature of Ahriman, the de- 
stroyer. His sole business is to injure the good 
creatures of Ahura Mazda. It is as great a merit 
to kill a serpent as to perform the highest sacri- 
fice. In the Bundahesh * we read that when Ahri- 
man was attacking the luminaries of heaven with 
malicious intent, he stood upon one-third of the 
inside of the sky and sprang like a snake out of 
the sky down to the earth. He made the world 
dark at midday, and noxious creatures, biting 
and venomous, such as the snake, scorpion, frog 
and lizard, were diffused by him over the earth, f 
Every one of the faithful was provided with a 
" snake-killer," consisting of a stick with a 
leather thong at the end. Finally, at the last 
judgment, the serpent is thrown into hell and 
burned up amid masses of molten metals whose 
heat is so intense that all evil fumes are con- 
sumed, and hell, having become quite pure, forms 
part of the new world of the redeemed.^ 

Fortunately we have not now to interpret the 
meaning of all these myths connected with the 
serpent. They spring from two sources, either 
from the uncanny, mysterious nature of the ser- 
pent, as Philo Biblus tells us, or from a fanciful 
comparison of the serpent with the clouds and 

* iii. lo and 15. f Bund, xxviii. 22. X Ibid. xxx. 31 and 32. 



(217) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

other natural phenomena. As the latter concep- 
tion has nothing to do with Genesis, I have pur- 
posely omitted stories of this sort. It is true 
that none of these myths tallies very closely with 
our narrative. The nearest relative of our ser- 
pent is the tempting serpent of Ahriman, who 
overcame the fair shepherd Yima. But the short 
account here given is sufficient to enable us to 
realize how great a part the serpent played in the 
mythology of the nations. I turn next to the 
conceptions of the Cherubim and the Flaming 
Sword. 

From the manner in which the cherubim are 
introduced, without a word of explanation or de- 
scription, it is plain that these objects, so mys- 
terious to us, were very familiar to the audience 
for whom the Jehovist wrote. We are therefore 
entitled to regard them as belonging to that large 
company of mythical beings, brute and human, of 
which ancient art has preserved innumerable ex- 
amples. Unfortunately, our rudimentary ar- 
chaeology can supply us with no authentic ex- 
ample from the soil of Palestine.* Perhaps no 
example exists. The Hebrews' lack of artistic 
skill and the Prophets' well-known aversion to 
representations even of animal life make it prob- 
able that objects of plastic art were at no time nu- 
merous in Israel. Even the cherubim of Solo- 
mon's temple, we are expressly informed, were 
executed in wood. It is true that among the metal 
castings made by Hiram of Tyre for Solomon, 

* A sculptured animal form surmounted by a human head of 
Assyrian type was discovered by M. Clermont-Ganneau in a 
stone quarry near Jerusalem (see "Rev. Grit.," Mai i6, 1892). 
Whether this composite figure was intended for a cherub is very 

doubtful. 

(218) 



The Cherub in the Psalms 



we read of cherubim on the base of the molten 
sea. From their association in this piece of orna- 
mentation with Hons and oxen,* it would appear 
that the cherubim possessed animal form dis- 
tinguishable from these familiar figures. We 
have a general description of the cherubim 
that guarded the Holy of Holies, which informs 
us that they possessed wings, but which is not 
sufficiently exact to enable us to form a mental 
picture of their appearance. 

Lacking any representation in art, we can only 
turn to the mythical interpretations of literature. 
A fine and vivid description of a cherub is given 
in the eighteenth Psalm : 

He bowed the heavens and came down, 

Clouds of darkness beneath His feet. 

He rode on the cherub and flew, 

On the wings of the wind He swooped down, 

In darkness He wrapt Himself, 

About Him as His covert. 

At the brightness before Him clouds vanished, 

Lo! hailstones and coals of fire.f 

In this wonderful description the cherub on 
which Jahveh flies is plainly a thunder cloud con- 
ceived as a chariot. The allusion is scarcely 
veiled. The one hundred and fourth Psalm says 
even less ambiguously : 

Thou makest clouds Thy chariot, 
Thou ridest on the wings of the wind. 
Thou makest winds Thy messengers, 
And flames of fire Thy servants. X 

In Ezekiel's vision § of the cherubim and the 
wheels the function of the cherubim as the 

* I Kings, vii. 29. X Ps. civ. 3, 4. 

f Ps. xviii. 9-12. § Ezek. i. 



(219) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

winged bearers of God is even more apparent. 
This, then, is one of the duties the cherubim were 
supposed to perform. They are winged beings 
who carry Jahveh in rapid flight through the air, 
and in this capacity they are intimately associated 
with storm clouds and with the phenomena of 
thunder and lightning. 

The second function of the cherubim is to 
watch and protect sacred places. This phase of 
their being is plainly brought out in our story of 
Genesis and by the presence of the cherubim in 
the Holy of Holies, where they guarded Jeho- 
vah's ark. Perhaps the most striking descrip- 
tion of the cherubim in this capacity is that of the 
Prophet Ezekiel. Some of Ezekiel's earlier 
visions of the cherubim are exceedingly compli- 
cated and technical and appear to have been sug- 
gested to him by the architecture of Babylon, 
where he lived for many years. He gives us a 
hint that his many-headed, composite beings are 
not the old Israelitish cherubim when he ad- 
mits * that he did not know they were cherubim 
until he heard them called so by God. Those 
mechanically constructed figures never arose 
from the spontaneous imagination of the people 
and do not represent the old traditional views. 
In his twenty-eighth chapter, however, Ezekiel 
presents to us another far more living form. 
It is the old Hebrew cherub in his original 
habitat. The passage is also interesting as 
containing another genuine Hebrew tradition of 
Paradise which differs in many respects from the 
Eden of Genesis. Ezekiel is addressing the King 
of Tyre. He describes him as another Adam in 

* Chap. X ; 2, 20. 
(220) 



The Paradise of Ezekiel 



an even more mythical terrestrial Paradise, until, 
in consequence of his pride, he is driven out by 
the cherub. Unfortunately the Hebrew text is 
quite corrupt. 

In Eden, the garden of God, thou wast; of every precious 
stone was thine adornment — ruby, topaz and jasper, tar- 
shish stone, onyx and beryl, sapphire, carbuncle and emer- 
ald; of gold was the work of thy [some ornament]. On 
the day when thou wast created, I placed thee with the 
cherub ... on the sacred mountain of God, and thou 
didst walk amid the fiery stones. Perfect thou wast in thy 
ways from the day when thou wert created till iniquity was 
found in thee. Through the greatness of thy traffic thou 
wert filled with violence and didst sin; so I cast thee out as 
profane from the mountain of God, and the cherub . , . 
expelled thee from amid the fiery stones.* 

We have here evidently an independent He- 
brew translation of the Creation and the Fall of 
man. In this narrative, as in Genesis, a favored 
man is placed at his creation in the garden of God, 
but when in pride and disobedience he revolts 
against God, he is cast out with the cooperation 
of the cherub, who is represented as the guardian 
of the place. In several of its features, e. g., the 
description of Paradise as on the sacred mountain 
of God, the wonderful account of the precious 
stones and the fiery stones, and the more active 
part taken by the cherub in the e:j^pulsion of 
man, Ezekiel's narrative seems to represent a 
more primitive tradition than our own. 

For our purpose it is not necessary to carry this 
study of the cherubim much further. We have 
already established the two salient aspects of his 
being, i. He is regarded as the winged bearer 
of God, he is the cloudy chariot on which Jahveh 

* Ezek. xxviii. 13-16 ; Toy's translation. 
(221) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

rides through the sky. 2. He is the guardian of 
divine places, of Paradise according to Genesis 
and Ezekiel, and of the Holy of Holies in Solo- 
mon's temple. It is not certain which of these 
conceptions came first. The majority of scholars 
seem to believe that the former is the older, and it 
is quite true that birds or other winged creatures 
regarded as the personification of storm clouds 
are an old and even a primitive belief. But, on the 
other hand, the belief that Jahveh dwelt on the 
earth — on some lofty mountain from which he 
occasionally descended to view the works of men 
— ^^seems to have come first, and only at a later 
time was Jahveh regarded as dwelling above in 
the ethereal regions. I therefore believe that the 
conception of the cherub as the guardian of di- 
vine places came first and that his transference to 
the sky was a later development. This belief is 
somewhat strengthened by the meaning of the 
word itself, to which I now turn. 

If we could definitely determine the origin 
of the word cherub, we should have an impor- 
tant hint as to the people among whom it arose. 
Lenormant * thought he had settled this point 
when he found on an Assyrian talisman belong- 
ing to M. Louis de Clercq the word kirubu, or 
cherub, accompanied by the ideographic sign 
shed or sidu, meaning sacred bull. Lenormant 
therefore regarded the cherubim as the winged 
bulls of Babylonian and Assyrian art which we 
see so often depicted as the guardians of sacred 
places. Although this identification has proved 
false, yet Lenormant's idea that the cheru- 
bim closely resembled the mythical animals of 

* "Begin, of Hist,," p. 126. 
(222) 



The Griffin 



Babylonia, as we have seen, is not altogether 
wrong. 

A more probable etymology, defended by Dill- 
mann and by many other scholars, associates the 
word cherub with the Greek word ypvtp (griffin), 
which is assigned to an Indo-Germanic root, 
grabh (grasp). Of all the fabulous animals of 
antiquity, the griffin attained the widest geo- 
graphical distribution. In Greece it was a well- 
known figure from early times. Numerous 
specimens of it have been found in Egypt, Chal- 
dea, Assyria, Persia, Cyprus, Syria and Phoeni- 
cia. Where the plastic representations of art 
fail, tradition takes it up and tells us that the 
griffin with flaming eyes watches vast treas- 
ures of gold in the mountains north of India,* 
and in Hindu mythology a somewhat similar 
animal is the guardian of the sacred Soma.f In 
form the griffin was represented as a combination 
of the two most powerful denizens of the earth 
and sky — the lion and the eagle. Its body is 
that of a winged lion and its head is the head 
of an eagle. It is interesting in this connection 
to remember that of the four faces of Ezekiel's 
composite cherubim, one was '' the face of an 
eagle.'* X This strange being is believed to have 
originated in Syria, among the Hittites, whose 
vigor and originality in depicting animals is well 
known. From them it passed over the old world. 
Among the Hittites the griffin was not repre- 
sented as a ferocious animal of prey, like the re- 

* See Ctesias' " Indica," 12, ed. Lyon. ; ^lian, " Hist. 
Anim." iv. 27 ; Herodotus, iii. 116 ; ^schylus, " Prometheus," 
804 f., etc., quoted by Dillmann. 

•f Kuhn, " Herabkunft des Feuers," 146 ff. 

X Ezek. i. ID. 



(223) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

liefs of Tiamat, but rather like the Sphinx, as a 
being of calm dignity and strength, the super- 
natural guardian of divine things.* 

It remains to add a word on the sword that 
aided the cherubim in keeping the way of the 
Tree of Life. By this we ought by no means to 
understand an ordinary weapon in the hands of 
these watchers. The cherubim are at least two 
in number, while there is only one sword. More- 
over, these mythical beings are seldom if ever 
depicted as bearing arms. They are self-suffi- 
cient. The sword also is self-sufficient and does 
not need the hand of the creature, for, to tell the 
truth, it is Jahveh's own sword and possesses in- 
herent energy. " And he placed to the east of 
the garden of Eden the cherubim and the flam- 
ing blade of the sword, which turns every way 
to keep the way of the Tree of Life." 

The sword, then, possesses these two charac- 
teristics: it moves of its own energy and it is a 
sword of fire, a flaming blade. It is evidently akin 
to '' the sword of Jahveh, so hard and great and 
strong," t or like " the sword bathed in heav- 
en." We have seen in the eighteenth Psalm 
that the cherubim were intimately connected 
with the phenomena of thunder and Hghtning. 
Ezekiel also constantly associated them with fire. 
In short, the two inherent characteristics of the 
Hebrew cherubim are united in this picture. 
The element of reposeful vigilance is contained 
in the immovable watchers, and the element of 
restless action is supplied by the glittering blade 

* See Furtwangler's interesting article, " Gryps," in Roscher's 
Lexicon. 

f Isaiah, xxvii. i and xxxiv. 5. 

(224) 



Babylonian Epic of Izdubar 



of Jahveh's sword (the lightning), which cease- 
lessly plays around the sacred tree ready to 
strike the profane intruder dead. 

Now I believe we have touched on all the char- 
acteristic conceptions of these two chapters and 
we may congratulate ourselves that there is noth- 
ing more difficult in store for us. I wish next to 
turn to the literature of Babylon to see if there is 
any narrative at present in our possession corre- 
sponding to our story of Eden, Adam and Eve 
and the Tree of Life. I have already called 
attention to many minor points of resemblance, 
but there remains a large and splendid piece of 
literature for us to look at. I mean the 
great epic poem which describes the adven- 
tures of Izdubar or Gilgamesh. I have several 
reasons for discussing this poem at some length. 
In the first place, it is one of the most con- 
siderable pieces of Babylonian literature and 
is of value for its own sake. Secondly, the later 
tablets of this epic contain the Babylonian ac- 
count of the Flood, which is so strikingly hke 
ours that even those persons who close their eyes 
to all other points of resemblance between Baby- 
lonian and Hebrew literature open them here. 
And thirdly, it throws some light on the second 
and third chapters of Genesis. Our first knowl- 
edge of this poem we owe, as usual, to George 
Smith, who discovered the larger portion of the 
tablets we now possess in the great library of 
Assurbanipal (668-626 b. c), at Nineveh, in 1872. 
Since then other copies have been recovered 
from the same city, but no complete copy has 
been found. The poem in its original form con- 
sisted of twelve tablets and may have contained 



(225) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

three thousand Hues, of which only about one- 
half have been recovered.* The work of collect- 
ing and arranging these fragments has been per- 
formed by Professor Paul Haupt, of the Johns 
Hopkins University, f Several excellent trans- 
lations have been made. I shall depend largely 
on that of Alfred Jeremias.ij: As the poem stands, 
it consists of fragments of twelve tablets, of which 
the last two are devoted largely to the Flood. 
Although, so far as I know, our tablets go 
back only to the copies presented by Assurbani- 
pal (seventh century b. c), yet there is no doubt 
that the story, and perhaps the poem, is im- 
mensely older. Berosus tells us that the Baby- 
lonian Noah before the flood was commanded by 
his deity to deposit all writings in his possession 
in the city of the sun at Sippara. § The city of 
Uruk (Erech), where a great part of the scene is 
laid, is one of the most ancient cities of Baby- 
lonia, and representations of Gilgamesh or Izdu- 
bar are found on some very old cylinders, prob- 
ably dating from before 2,000 b. c. These por- 
traits are all much alike, and they seem to repre- 
sent a very unusual type of humanity — one would 
almost say, a member of an earlier race than 
the Babylonian. The best proof of the enor- 
mous age of the epic is the way its stories have 
infiltrated into the mythologies of many nations. 
The poem, as we have said, is divided into twelve 
tablets or books, and as Izdubar is plainly con- 
ceived as a solar deity, these may very well stand 
for the twelve signs of the Zodiac through which 

* Jastrow, " Relig. of Bab.," p. 471. 

f "Das Bab. Nimrod-Epos," Leipzig, 1884-1891. 

X " Izdubar-Nimrod," Leipzig, 1891. 

§ Cory's " Fragments," p. 33. 

(226) 



Name of Izdubar 



the sun passes on his yearly path. It has been 
pointed out that several of the adventures of Iz- 
dubar correspond with the signs of the Zodiac. 
He kills the lion in the month of Leo. His court- 
ship of Ishtar (goddess of love) occurs on the 
sixth tablet, which corresponds to the sixth sign, 
Virgo. The flood is described in the eleventh 
tablet, and the eleventh sign is Aquarius, etc.* 

The hero of the poem is known by the double 
name of Izdubar and Gilgamesh. The former 
is the English equivalent commonly assigned to 
his name in the inscriptions since George Smith ; 
its meaning is still doubtful. f The alternative, 
Gilgamesh, is, I believe, due to Pinches, who dis- 
covered on a lexicographical tablet the equation 
Izdubar-Gilgamesh. This would identify him 
with an old king, Gilgamos.^ His name is al- 
ways preceded by the sign of divinity. It is dif- 
ficult to say exactly how we should regard him, 
whether as a man or as a god. It is true, prayer 
is addressed to him as a mighty king and judge, 
but in the body of the poem he is scarcely more 
a mythical being than are some of the heroes of 
Homer, and there is no good reason to doubt 
that, as in all compositions of this sort, an ancient 
setting of fact is preserved under a great deal of 
fiction. The spiritual facts, however, alone are 
important in all these ancient sagas, and the spir- 
itual facts by their very nature can never be con- 
cealed. 

I need only add that this epic, Hke all ancient 
epics, is not the work of one mind. Probably 

* A. H. Sayce in Smith's " Chaldean Genesis," p. 176. 
f Jeremias, " Izd.-Nimrod," p. i. 
X Jastrow, " Relig-. of Bab.," p. 468. 



(227) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

more than one people has worked over it, and 
the traces of their handiwork are very appa- 
rent. The poem is one only in name. It con- 
sists of a number of independent narratives, often 
very loosely connected, and it would be an easy 
task to separate them. As there is reason to be- 
lieve that the poem was translated into Baby- 
lonian from the Accadian language, it must be at 
least as old as 2000 b. c, and possibly older. Its 
stories are of such a popular character that they 
may very well have been handed down by word 
of mouth for a long time before they were re- 
duced to writing. 

The poem opens, according to Haupt, with 
these interesting words: 

He who has beheld the history of Izdubar . . . 
knows all. He who sees the secret and hidden ... he 
brings knowledge which goes back before the Flood. He 
wanders weary on a distant path. 

The first tablet, of which only a few fragments 
remain, evidently describes a siege of the walled 
city, Uruk, and times of great distress. 

The she asses tread their foals under foot. The cows 
turn against their calves. The people lament like the 
cattle. The maidens mourn like doves. The gods of Uruk, 
the well protected, turn into flies and swarm around the 
streets. The demons of well-protected Uruk turn into 
snakes, and glide into holes (?). Three years did the en- 
emy besiege Uruk. The gates were bolted. The earth 
works were thrown up. Ishtar did not raise her head be- 
fore the enemy. . . . Then Bel opened his mouth, and 
spoke to Ishtar, the queen, to make known the word. (Tab- 
let breaks off.) 

The next is fuller. There is great commotion 
in Uruk on account of Izdubar, who is turning 
things upside down. At first it seems doubtful 

(228) 



Creation of Eabani 



whether Izdubar has captured Uruk and is abus- 
ing the people, or whether the people are carried 
away with enthusiasm and are running after him. 

On the whole, the former is more probable. 

" Izdubar," the second tablet begins, " did not 
leave a son to his father, his daughter to a hero, 
his wife to a husband." Parents, therefore, com- 
plain to the goddess of the city. 

He has no rival, . . . Your inhabitants are led [to 
battle]. Izdubar leaves not a maiden [to her mother], his 
daughter to a hero, his wife to a husband. . . . heard 
their cry. ... To the goddess they called with loud 
voice, "Thou, Aruru,* hast created him; create now his 
equal. On the day of his heart may he . . . Let them 
fight with each other. Uruk [may witness it?] " 

The only way they see of getting rid of Izdu- 
bar is through some mightier hero who by the 
aid of the goddess may conquer him. Aruru's 
answer to this prayer is interesting. 

When the goddess Aruru heard that, she made a man In 
her heart, a man of Anu [i. e., by the help of Anu]. Aruru 
washed her hands, picked up clay, and threw it on the 
ground. 

This reminds us somewhat of Adam's creation 
out of dust, although the solemnity and the ten- 
derness of Genesis are altogether lacking. In 
the expression, ^' threw it on the ground," we 
see the cold indifference to man so common in 
paganism. The man so created, however, is a 
very interesting person. He becomes the de- 
voted friend of Izdubar and shares that hero's 
adventures. The story of Eabani's life does not 

* It will be remembered that in Pinches' "Creation" tablet 
Aruru assisted Marduk in creating man. 

(229) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

seem to belong to the original poem at all. 
Everything pertaining to him is strongly de- 
picted. He is represented as man in his first 
savage condition. He is, in fact, the first man, 
made directly by a god out of dust and not be- 
gotten, and it is hard not to imagine that at first 
he was conceived as a kind of Babylonian Adam 
and that his association with Izdubar was added 
later. On the cylinders he is represented as half 
brute, half human. 

She made Eabani, a hero, a noble offspring, a man of the 
fields; covered with hair was his body, with long tresses 
like a woman. The [waving?] hair of his head stood up like 
that of the wheat [god?]. He was clothed in a garment 
like the field. He ate grass with the gazelles, he drank 
water with the cattle of the field, he amused himself with 
the animals of the water. 

In this lonely life among the animals, with 
whom he is on very intimate terms, Eabani again 
reminds us of Adam. The resemblance between 
them becomes more striking as we go on. What 
follows is introduced so abruptly that there seems 
to be a break. The meaning, however, is plain. 
Eabani was created to overcome Izdubar, who is 
destroying Uruk. But of this Eabani knows 
nothing. He is leading a happy life, far away 
in the wilderness. It is therefore necessary that 
some means be discovered to bring Eabani to 
Uruk. Accordingly, Sadu, the hunter, is de- 
spatched to capture him. Eabani's surprise and 
animal wrath in the presence of the first man he 
has ever seen are wonderfully described. 

Sadu, a hunter, the man-catcher, met him at the entrance 
to the watering place. He, Eabani, saw him, the hunter. 
His countenance grew dark, he went with his cattle back 

(230) 



Sadu, the Hunter 



into the shelter, he was troubled, lamented, cried aloud, 
[sad?] was his heart, his face was disturbed . . . sor- 
row [stole into?] his heart. ... In the distance his 
face was burning with anger. 

Here something is lost. Sadu, the hunter, 
becomes afraid. He does not dare attempt 
Eabani's capture, and goes back to tell of his 
failure to the god who had sent him. 

The hunter opened his mouth and said [to Ea? or 
Shamash? his father]: "My father [?], one hero going is 
not enough. In heaven is . . . his strength is like a man 
of Anu. . . . He strides along over the mountain. 
. . . With the cattle of the field he continually eats 
grass. His feet are always at the entrance of the watering 
places. ... I fear him, I will not go near him. He 
has filled up the hole I dug [to entrap him], torn away the 
cords [I laid out] ; he let the cattle and beasts of the field 
escape out of my hands, and would not allow me to hunt." 
[The god] said to the hunter, [set out and go] to Uruk, the 
city of Izdubar. 

Fragments here indicate that in Uruk Sadu is 
to find a priestess of Ishtar who will aid him in 
capturing Eabani. The narrative goes on : 

According to the advice of his father, the hunter sets 
out and goes to Uruk. Before the face of Izdubar [the 
hunter appears and speaks]. 

In the same language Sadu tells Izdubar of ais 
unsuccessful attempt. There is evidently some 
confusion here, for Izdubar is represented as ad- 
vising Sadu how to capture Eabani, who was 
made to destroy him. 

Izdubar spoke to him, " Go, my hunter, take the priest- 
ess Uhat. When the cattle come to drink she shall show 
herself to him. He shall see her and will approach. His 
cattle that have flocked round him will run away." The 
hunter went, he took with him the priestess Uhat, he took 

(231) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



the straight road. On the third day they reached the ap- 
pointed field. The hunter and the priestess sat down as 
it pleased them. One day, two days, they sat at the en- 
trance to the watering place. With the cattle he took his 
drink, he played with the animals of the water. Eabani 
came, he whose house was in the mountains. He ate grass 
with the gazelles, he drank water with the cattle, he amused 
himself with the creatures of the water. Uhat saw the 
animal-man. ..." That is he, Uhat " [said the 
hunter]. 

Uhat charms Eabani and draws him away from 
his beloved animals. It is hard again not to see 
in this a profound reminiscence of Genesis. As I 
said before, the story of Eabani probably has 
been tampered with to make it fit into the action 
of the poem. The motives that led to this first 
meeting of Eabani and Uhat may have been en- 
tirely altered. In its present form the Babylo- 
nian epic contains much that is to us gross and 
revolting, and of the chaste reticence and purity 
of our Paradise narrative there is hardly a trace. 
We must remember, however, that Izdubar is one 
of the oldest pieces of human literature — at least 
a thousand years older than the poems of Homer, 
and we must regard its genuinely ancient na'iveti 
with some indulgence. And yet, I repeat, cer- 
tain motives of this story forcibly remind us of 
our book. It was in this way that Eve found 
Adam, living contentedly among his cattle, 
among which Jahveh had looked for a help- 
meet for him, and by her influence Adam was 
brought to the sense of the dignity of manhood 
and was withdrawn from the society of animals.* 

* I am indebted for this suggestion to Dr. Jastrow, " Re- 
ligions of Babylonia," p. 476. Since these lectures were de- 
livered I have seen Dr. Jastrow's interesting brochure entitled 
"Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature," and have been 

(232) 



Eabani and the Priestess 



This touch, so profound and so suggestive, also 
follows in the Babylonian story. 

For six days Eabani remained [near]. Afterward he 
turned his face toward his cattle. They saw him, Eabani; 
the gazelles hid, the beasts of the field turned away from 
him. 

The meaning is plain. Eabani has become a 
man by his association with woman; he is sep- 
arated forever from the animal kingdom. The 
beasts recognize this and are afraid of him. 

Then Eabani was frightened and fell in a swoon. His 
knees trembled, as his cattle ran away from him. , . . 
Then he heard . . . his senses came back. He re- 
turned and sat down at the feet of the priestess and looked 
up into her face, and while the priestess speaks his ears 
hear. . , . She speaks to him, " Eabani, you are 
noble, you are like a god. Why do you stay with the beasts 
of the field? Come, I will bring you to walled Uruk, to the 
bright house, the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, to the place 
of Izdubar who is perfect in strength, who like a mountain 
bull excels the heroes in valor." While she speaks to him 
he listens to her words. He who is wise in heart seeks a 
friend. " Come^ Uhat, take me to the bright and sacred 
dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, to the place of Izdubar, who is 
perfect in strength, and who like a mountain bull rules 
over the heroes. I will fight with him, mightily will I 
[win his friendship]. I will send to Uruk a lion [a wild- 
cat] to prove Izdubar's strength." 

It will be noticed here, as in Genesis, that after 
the womafi has obtained her supremacy over the 
man, her first act is to take him out of his happy 
garden and plunge him into toil and struggle. 

gratified to find myself so much in accordance with the views 
there expressed. My debt to this distinguished scholar is already 
so great that I prefer not to increase it by recasting what I have 
written on the subject of Eabani and Adapa in the light of his 
more recent work. 



(233) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Twelve: 
The Epic of Izdubar and the Legend of A dap a 

IN giving an account of the Babylonian epic 
which narrated the adventures of Izdubar, or 
Gilgamesh, I have called attention to the reasons 
for studying this poem with some care. First, 
because it is one of the oldest and most remark- 
able compositions in existence, full of interest 
and worth studying for its own sake; secondly, 
because the latter part of the poem contains the 
Babylonian story of the Flood, and thirdly, be- 
cause scattered through the whole poem we find 
suggestions of the early chapters of Genesis. 

We have seen how Eabani, whom we may al- 
most call the Babylonian Adam, was created by 
the goddess Aruru out of clay, and how he lived 
a happy life among the animals, '' eating grass 
with the gazelles," until he came to the realiza- 
tion of the dignity of manhood through his 
friendship with a woman, the priestess Uhat. 
The first thing Uhat does is to carry Eabani away 
from his animal Paradise to the walled city of 
Uruk, where lives the great hero Izdubar, whom 
Eabani was created to fight with. However, 
they do not fight. Eabani is warned in a dream 
by his mother, Aruru, that Izdubar's powers 
are greater than his own, and instead of fight- 
ing, the two heroes form a life-long friendship 

(234) 



The Sacred Grove 



and support each other in the series of adventures 
which follow. Their first adventure is with the 
giant Humbaba, who appears to have been an 
ancient king of Elam.* Humbaba is the pos- 
sessor of a wonderful sacred grove, from which 
a pestilence goes out to strike every profane in- 
truder dead. Here Izdubar has a dream, which 




IZDUBAR AND EABANI 

I will give as a specimen of the dreams that are 
so common in this poem. 

The dream that I dreamed was quite . . . The 
heaven resounded, the earth roared and darkness came 
down, the Hghtning shone, fire came forth sated [with de- 
struction], full of death. The brightness was extinguished, 
it was out of the fire . , . fell down, became smoke. 



They enter the sacred grove where Humbaba 
was accustomed to walk with lofty strides, and 
evidently slay him. The episode which follows 
is so peculiar and such wonderfully good epic 
poetry that I give it entire. After the battle, 

* Jeremias, " Izdubar-Nimrod," p. 21. 

■ -,L .. -. k,J 

(235) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Izdubar washed himself, removed all traces of the 
combat, dressed himself in a shining white gar- 
ment and put on his diadem. So noble was the 
form and appearance of the hero that it excited 
the admiration of the great goddess Ishtar, the 
Babylonian Venus. 

" Come, Izdubar," she says to him, " be my spouse. 
Give me your love for a gift. You shall be my husband, 
I will be your wife. I will place you on a chariot of 
precious stones and gold, whose wheels are of gold, its 
horns are of sapphire. You shall drive great kudanu 
[lions]. Under the fragrance of cedars you shall come 
into our house. When you enter our house, then shall 
. . . kiss your feet. Kings, lords, and princes shall 
bow [?] before you, [All the produce of] mountain and 
land they shall bring you as a tribute." 

But this invitation, which Heine unconsciously 
so perfectly reproduced in his Princess Use, Izdu- 
bar declines. He recalls the fate of the former 
aspirants to Ishtar's favor, and lays aside the 
dangerous distinction. 

" Very well," he says, " I will openly relate your incon- 
stancies. Tammuz [Adonis], the husband of your youth, 
you compelled to weep year after year. You loved the 
beautiful Allulu bird, you crushed him, you broke his wings. 
Now he stands in the wood and cries, ' Oh! my wings.' 
You also loved a lion of wonderful strength, seven and 
seven times [again and again] you outwitted him. You 
also loved a horse mighty in battle, with whip and spur 
did you afiflict him; although he had galloped seven leagues, 
when he was tired and wanted to drink you urged him on, 
and compelled his mother, the goddess Sibili, to weep. 
You loved a chief shepherd, who constantly burned incense 
to you and daily slaughtered kids. You beat him and 
turned him into a tiger, so that his own shepherds would 
hunt him and his dogs bite him fiercely. You loved a 
giant [?] your father's gardener, who continually brought 
you presents, and every day prettily adorned your table 
[made bright your dishes]. You cast your eye on him 
and made him mad. * O, my Giant,' you said, * come now, 

(236) 



IZDUBAR AND IsHTAR 



you will enjoy your fruit. You shall stretch out your hand 
and dispel our hesitation.' The giant said to you, ' What 
scheme are you plotting against me, my little mother? 
Prepare no meal, for I will not partake of it. What I 
should partake of is bad and accursed food, covered with 
dangerous fire. . . .' As soon as you heard that, you 
attacked him and turned him into a dwarf, and laid kim 
down on a couch, so that he could not stand up. Now you 
love me also, but like those [you will destroy me]." 



All these allusions were popular stones, several 
of which passed into Greek and Roman mythol- 
ogy. The shepherd turned into a tiger reminds 
us of Actseon, changed to a stag by Diana and 
torn by his dogs. Tammuz was Adonis. The 
charge that Ishtar caused him to weep, however, 
does not seem well founded, as Tammuz, the 
young summer god, was killed by the sharp tooth 
of approaching winter. It was Ishtar who wept 
for him, and who to free the souls of the departed 
descended into hell. The ironical and bantering 
language that Izdubar addresses to one of the 
chief deities of his people surprises us in so an- 
cient a poem. It reminds us of the religious 
attitude of the Romans in late and sceptical ages. 
When people address their gods in this manner 
it can hardly be said that they believe in them, 
but it is not a little singular to see paganism dis- 
integrating and faith passing into ridicule at so 
early a period. 

The wrath of Ishtar is most naively related, and 
the embarrassment of her father, who was unable 
to resist her tears, reminds us of similar predica- 
ments of Zeus. She flew at once to Anu and said 
to him, " My father, Izdubar has insulted me. 
Izdubar has related my faults, my faults and evil 
deeds." Anu, however, who takes for granted 

(237) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

that Izdubar's criticisms are merited, tries to 
pacify her. '' Do not be disturbed," he says, 
" even though Izdubar has related your faults 
and evil deeds." Ishtar refuses to be mollified. 
*' My father," she prays, " make me a heavenly 
bull." Anu hesitates. '' What is this you ask ? " 
Ishtar prevails, and the heavenly bull is made and 
is sent down to destroy the insolent hero. Izdu- 
bar and Eabani, undaunted, attack it together 
and kill it. Ishtar's wrath now knows no bounds. 
She mounts the wall of Uruk and utters a loud 
cry. 

" Curse on Izdubar, who injured me and who slew the 
heavenly bull! " Eabani heard those words of Ishtar's, 
tore off the ibbatu [shoulder?] of the heavenly bull, and 
threw it in her face. " Oh! you, I will conquer you as you 
did [think to do] him." 

Their triumph was short-lived. Eabani was 
soon made to pay the penalty of his impiety. 
Everything points to the fact that he did not die 
a natural death. In the twelfth tablet we are 
told that the earth swallowed him up, and Izdu- 
bar himself was soon smitten with a deadly lep- 
rosy. From this point the character of the poem 
changes. Its tone becomes more tragical and 
the superhuman element begins to reveal itself 
more plainly. The whole setting becomes more 
sombre and weird. Izdubar has lost his friend 
Eabani, and he is plagued by a sore disease. He 
begins to turn his face toward a certain magical 
country, the Island of the Blessed, which lies 
far out to sea beyond the waters of Death. On 
this island grows the Tree of Life, or as it is 
called in the poem, '' the plant that makes the 
old man young again." Only two mortals have 

(^38) 



SlT- 



NAPISTIM 



ever reached those blessed shores, the way to 
which is beset with terrible dangers. They are 
Sit-napistim and his wife. Sit-napistim is one 
of the most curious figures in the whole narra- 
tive. He is the Babylonian Noah, who, with 
his family alone, escaped from the deluge that 
destroyed the world. 

In one respect, however, Sit-napistim is supe- 
rior to Noah. After the flood had subsided, he 
did not share the fate of mortal men. He was 
translated to the Island of the Blessed and be- 
came its guardian. On account of his escape 
from death, he has also been compared with 
Enoch, '' who was not, for God took him." * But 
the fact that Sit-napistim's wife also escaped 
death and continued to live with him in the Island 
of the Blessed somewhat weakens the compari- 
son. 

Now let us return to our story. 

Izdubar wept bitterly over his friend Eabani, lying on the 
ground. " I will not die like Eabani. Sorrow has entered 
my soul. I have learned the fear of death. ... I will 
go with rapid step to the powerful Sit-napistim, son of 
Kidin-Marduk." 

Sit-napistim's dwelling place is vaguely de- 
scribed as " in the distance, at the confluence of 
the streams." So Izdubar sets out. His first 
serious adventure is with the Scorpion-Men, 
who guard the pass of Mount Masu. The de- 
scription of these men is very curious. 

Then he came to the mountain pass, Masu, whose en- 
trance was continually watched by beings whose backs 
reached to the confines of heaven, and their breasts below 
Arallu [the lower world]. The Scorpion-Men guard the 
* Budde, " Urgeschichte," p. i8i. 



(239) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

gate. They strike terrible alarm, their look is death. Awful 
is their brightness, dashing down mountains. They guard 
the sun when he rises and when he sets. 

This is all interesting as throwing light on 
the Babylonian cosmology. The Babylonians 
represented the confines of the world as a great 
dam which supported the firmament of heaven. 
At each end of the world stands a great moun- 




SCORPION-MEN 



tain — on one side the bright sunrise mountain, 
on the other the dark sunset mountain. As to 
the position of these two mythical mountains, 
naturally nothing definite can be said. They 
stand, however, on the verge between cosmos 
and chaos. This is well brought out by the 
Scorpion-Men who guard the rising and the set- 
ting of the sun. They stand on the mountain 

(240) 



Island of the Blessed 



pass, the boundary line that separates the world 
from chaos. The upper portion of their bodies, 
which is human, reaches to heaven; the lower, 
serpentine part belongs to the nether world.* 
These Scorpion-Men, of course, are the constel- 
lation Scorpio, through which the sun passes in 
the autumnal equinox. In the Creation tablet 
they were described as among the monsters of 
Tiamat, but, after her downall, they apparently 
became guardians of the sun. In regard to the 
general geography of this portion of the poem, 
the Island of the Blessed — to which Izdubar is 
making his way — lies far from land, beyond the 
waters of bitterness and the waters of Death, at 
the confluence of the streams. Two of these 
streams, in any event, are the Tigris and the 
Euphrates. We should, therefore, regard the 
Island of the Blessed as a mythical island far out 
in the Persian Gulf. There seems to be no 
reason to regard it as in the domain of the 
lower world, for the very thing that distin- 
guished Sit-napistim is that he did not die at 
all, and he and his wife are the sole occupants 
of this island. The path taken by Izdubar is, 
of course, very obscure, for he was going by a 
mythical way to an island that never existed. 
Jeremias informs us,t however, that the table- 
land Masu was identified in the annals of Assur- 
banipal and Sargon with the Syro-Arabian des- 
ert, south and southeast of the Tigris and Eu- 
phrates, and was described as " the place of 
thirst and desolation, to which no bird of heaven 
comes, where no wild asses, no gazelles graze." 

* Jensen, " Kosmologie der Babylonier," p. 316. 
f " Izdubar-Nimrod," p. 29. 



(241) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

This terrible land, so little known, was very natu- 
rally selected as on the way leading to the waters 
of Death. 

When Izdubar saw them [the Scorpion-Men], his coun- 
tenance was full of terror and alarm. Their frightful ap- 
pearance robbed him of his senses. The Scorpion-Man 
spoke to his wife, '* He who comes tq us is of the bodily 
likeness of a god." 

Izdubar tells him of his purpose, and the Scor- 
pion-Man describes the fearful dangers of the 
march through Mount Masu. Miles of thick 
darkness extend in every direction. At Izdu- 
bar's entreaty he opens the gate, and the myste- 
rious journey now begins. 

'' He wanders one mile, thick is the darkness ; 
it does not grow light. He wanders two miles, 
thick is the darkness," and so on through the 
twelve miles in the heart of the mountain. At 
last he emerges on the shore of the sea, and sees 
a magnificent tree loaded with jewels and pre- 
cious stones, which reminds us of Ezekiel's 
strange account of the precious stones in the gar- 
den of Eden. Here sits a divine maiden, Sabitu 
(a very obscure personage), " on the throne of 
the sea." Seeing Izdubar approach, Sabitu 
withdraws to her palace and bolts the door. Iz- 
dubar says to her, ''Sabitu, what do you see? 
. . . Why do you bolt the door? [if you do 
not open] I will shatter the door." She yields, 
and Izdubar tells her of the journey he has under- 
taken and of his beloved friend " resolved to 
dust." " If it is possible I will cross the sea; if 
it is not possible I will lay myself down on the 
earth, mourning." Sabitu tells him : '' Izdubar, 
there has never been a ferry-boat, and no one 

(242) 



IzDUBAR Seeks Immortality 



from time immemorial has crossed that sea. 
. . . Shamash [sun], the hero, alone has 
crossed the sea. Besides [ ?] Shamash, who can 
cross it ? Hard is the crossing, difficult its path, 
locked are the waters of Death, the bolts are 
drawn." 

She tells him, however, of Arad-Ea, the boat- 
man, who carried Sit-napistim over. Arad-Ea 
consents to transport him, but tells Izdubar first 
to go to the woods and to cut a rudder sixty ells 
long. After forty-five days of danger, during 
which " the ship staggers and tosses," Arad-Ea 
comes to the waters of Death. Through these 
waters they pass with only twelve strokes. At 
last the danger is over. '' Izdubar loosens his 
belt as they approach the shores of the Blessed 
Island." Sit-napistim, who seems to be rather 
weary of this solitary immortality, is glad to see 
Izdubar, but will not permit him to land. So 
they converse from the boat and the shore. The 
narrative is here very fragmentary, but we can 
discern that Izdubar tells his ancestor the story of 
his life, his many adventures, the death of Eabani, 
and the terrible sacrifices he has made to reach 
the Tree of Life. Sit-napistim, however, does not 
encourage him in his hope of immortality. " So 
long," he says, " as we build houses, so long as 
we set seals to contracts, so long as brothers 
quarrel, so long as there is enmity ... so 
long as the rivers' waves flow to [the sea], no 
image will be made of Death. . . . The 
days of Death are unknown to [man]." 

To this Izdubar naturally offers the objection 
that Sit-napistim himself has escaped death. '' I 
see you, Sit-napistim," he says, '' your appear- 



(243) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

ance is not changed, you are like me . . . 
tell me how it is that you have attained the life 
among the gods which you desired? " 

Sit-napistim then relates to Izdubar a long and 
remarkable narrative of the Deluge, which occu- 
pies the greater part of the eleventh tablet. As 
we are not yet ready for this story, I pass it over 
for the present to finish the history of Izdubar. 
At the end of his long recital, Sit-napistim, who 
has become very well disposed to Izdubar, says 
to him: 

" Now your concern is, whicli one of the gods will lend 
you strength. The life that you desire you shall obtain. 
Very well, go to sleep." Six days he was like one who sits 
lame. Sleep came upon him like a storm wind. 

In the meantime, Sit-napistim's wife, who 
pities Izdubar, proposes to her husband that they 
prepare a magic food which will relieve him tem- 
porarily, and that they send him back again. The 
preparation of this food is singularly described. 
'' First it was [prepared] ; secondly, it was peeled ; 
thirdly, it was moistened; fourthly, he cleansed 
the bowl ; fifthly, old age was added ; sixthly, he 
suddenly transformed him. Then the man ate 
the magic food." 

Izdubar feels the effect of the magic food, but 
knows that it cannot permanently avert death. 
Nothing but the Tree of Life can do that. 
'' Where shall I go? Death lies upon my bed." 
Then Sit-napistim grants his wish to land on the 
Island and tells the boatman of a healing, cleans- 
ing spring in which Izdubar may bathe and wash 
his leprosy away. Izdubar washes and is com- 
pletely healed. 

(244) 



The Loss of the Magical Plant 

'' He washed his sores as white as snow in the 
water, he washed off the leprous skin; his body 
appeared whole." He returns to Sit-napistim, 
who now reveals to him the last and greatest se- 
cret of the Island. Sit-napistim says : '' You are 
returning satisfied and healed. What shall I give 
you that you may return to your own land? I 
will tell you a secret " (unfortunately this is much 
broken), " I will reveal to you the . . . There 
is a plant Hke a thistle . . . pricks hke 
a piece of thorn. If your hands can gather 
it . . r 

Izdubar leaves his ship, piles up stones to en- 
able him to reach the desired object, and at last 
succeeds in plucking the miraculous plant, which 
he brings to the ship. 

Izdubar said to Arad-Ea, the boatman, "This plant Is 
a plant of promise, by which a man obtains life. I will 
take the plant with me to walled Uruk; I will raise a wood 
of it, and will then cut it off. Its name shall be An Old 
Man Grows Young. I will eat of it and return to the vigor 
of my youth." 



Then they went on their way. 

They left ten miles of the way behind them; after 
twenty miles they stopped. Izdubar saw a spring of cool 
water. He descended and while he was pouring out water 
within, a snake [?] came out. The plant slipped from him, 
a . . . demon came out and took the plant away. In 
his fright he uttered a curse. It . . . Izdubar sat down 
and wept. Tears flowed over his cheeks. [He said] to 
Arad-Ea, the boatman, " Wherefore is my strength re- 
newed? Why does my soul rejoice in its life? I have 
received no benefit. The benefit is gone to the earth-lion 
[earth spirit]. Now, after only twenty miles, another has 
got possession of the plant. As I opened the well the 
plant slipped from me. . . . Who am I that I should 
possess it? " 



(245) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

After all his labors and sufferings, Izdubar has 
failed to achieve the purpose of his journey. It is 
true he has washed away his leprosy in the 
spring of Hfe, and his powers are renewed by the 
magic food which Sit-napistim and his wife have 
prepared for him, but he has failed to retain pos- 
session of the plant that " makes the old man 
young again," and he must yet taste of death. 
Accordingly, he returns in despair to Uruk, 
where he celebrates the funeral of Eabani and 
makes lamentation for him. The remainder of 
the poem is very interesting, as it reveals the old 
Babylonian conception of the condition of the 
dead. 

[You go no more] to a temple. [You no more put on] 
white garments. No more do you anoint yourself with the 
sweet smelling fat of bulls, so that [the people] crowd 
around you for the sake of the perfume. You no longer 
draw your bow on the earth, those whom you have wounded 
shut you in. You no longer carry the sceptre in your hand 
. . . the death spirits banish you. You no longer put 
rings on your feet. No longer do you raise the war cry. 
The wife that you loved, you kiss no more. The wife that 
you hate, you beat no more [an equally painful thought]. 
Your daughter that you loved, you kiss no more. The 
daughter that you hated, you beat no more. The misery of 
the nether world takes hold of you. She who is dark there, 
she who is dark there. Mother Ninasu,* she who is dark 
there, whose form is covered by no bright robe, whose 
breast is like a young sappati animal . . . 

It is remarkable that all the great epics of an- 
tiquity end in the attempt to solve the mystery of 
death. Every great pagan poem is haunted by 
the sadness and misery of the next life. The 
cause of this sadness is most plainly revealed in 
the poem. The next Hfe is purely negative; it 

* Wife of Nirgal, goddess of the lower world. 
(246) 



Ancient Idea of Future Life 

consists in the lack of all we have loved here. 
This must always be the way in which a spiritual 
life presents itself to men who do not hve in the 
spirit. To them, the extinction of sense with its 
pleasures is the end of all they hold dear. And 
yet, miserable as men believe death to be, they 
feel a natural curiosity in regard to it. This curi- 
osity is usually gratified in the old poems by 
evoking the shades and making them repeat the 
popular opinions in regard to the land of the 
dead, or by the descent of some hero or heroine 
to the nether world. In Izdubar, the former ex- 
pedient is adopted, the latter in Ishtar's descent 
into hell. Eabani is called back to earth for a 
short colloquy, and I cannot help thinking that 
the heavy and sombre misery in which the poem 
ends is more impressive than the more minute 
and graphic descriptions of Homer and Virgil. 
Izdubar goes from one temple to another, until, 
at last, he encounters Nirgal, god of the lower 
world. 

" Rattle at the door of the grave [Izdubar says to him]. 
Open the earth, that the spirit of Eabani may come out of 
the earth Hke a breath of wind." [When the hero Nirgal] 
heard this, he rattled on the grave-chamber, opened the 
earth, let the spirit of Eabani pass out like a breath of 
wind, ... 

" Speak, my friend, speak, my friend [Izdubar cries to 
him], tell me the nature of that land which you have seen. 
Speak to me." " I cannot tell you, my friend; I cannot tell 
you if I wished to tell you the nature of that land. . . . 
Sit down and weep. ... I will sit and weep. . . . 
What you have done [?] Why your heart has rejoiced. 
. . . The worms eat it like an old garment. What you 
have done, why your heart is rejoiced ... is filled 
with dust . . . crouches down." 

It is a great pity that these lines are so frag- 

(247) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

mentary. The poem closes, as Jeremias says, in 
a kind of rhythmic antiphon between Izdubar 
and Eabani, which describes the joys of Walhalla 
awaiting heroes fallen in battle, and the unhappy 
fate of the man whose corpse remains unburied, 
one of the commonest beliefs of antiquity. 

On a pillow lying. 

Drinking cool water, 

He who was wounded in battle. 

(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.) 

His father and his mother [hold?] his head, 

And his wife [kneels?] at his side. 

Whose corpse lies on the field, 

(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.) 

His soul has no rest on the earth. 

Whosoever has no one who cares for his soul, 

(You saw it? Yes, I saw it.) 

The dregs of the cup, the remains of the food, what 

is thrown into the street. 
That he must eat. 

Eabani is represented as regretting the step 
he took in coming to Uruk. He curses Sadu, 
the hunter, and the priestess Uhat, who took him 
away from his happy life with the animals. He 
wishes that " they may be shut up in the great 
prison." The poem ends with this sad descrip- 
tion of the lower world : 

To the house of darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla,* to the 
house whose inhabitant does not come out, to the path 
which never returns, to the house whose inhabitants are 
deprived of light, to the place where dust is their food, 
mire. There are they clothed like birds in garments of 
wings and do not see the light, but dwell in darkness. [In 
the house] my friend, which I inhabit dwell the wearers of 
heavy crowns, [there live] the wearers of crowns, who 
from the most ancient times ruled the land, whose names 

* Irkalla, a god of the lower world. See Jastrow, p. 592. 
(248) 



Reminders of Genesis 



and memories Anu and Bel have preserved. There they 
prepare cold [?] distasteful [?] food, . . . They pour 
out water. [In the house] my friend, that I inhabit live 
chief priests and honorable men, live conjurers and 
magicians. [There dwell] the temple-servants of the great 
gods, there dwells Etana,* there dwells Ner,f there dwells 
the queen of the lower world, the goddess Ninkigal.^ 
[There lives] . . . the Writer of the lower world, 
bowed before her. [The goddess Ninkigal raised] her head, 
was aware of me. . , . 

Apart from the Flood legend, there are only 
two episodes in the epic of Izdubar that remind 
us of our Book, and they are widely separated 
from each other — one is the Island of the 
Blessed, and the other is the story of Eabani, the 
wild man made by Aruru. Little as the Island of 
the Blessed reminds us of the Garden of Eden 
when viewed with a superficial glance, there is no 
doubt that it contains many points of similarity 
with our Paradise. The Island of the Blessed, 
it is true, lies in the sea, or, more particularly, in 
the Persian Gulf. The Garden of Eden, on the 
contrary, seems to He in the desert. That is a 
great difference, but, as I have said, the general 
geographical setting of our story is not Baby- 
lonian. In spite of this fact, we discern many 
minor resemblances between our narrative and 
the Babylonian epic. The Garden of Eden lies 
at the parting of four great streams, two of which 
are the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Island 
of the Blessed lies at " the confluence of the riv- 
ers," two of which certainly are the Tigris and 
the Euphrates. In ancient times, in addition to 
these rivers, two others — the Kercha and the 

* A mythical hero. Jastrow, p. 519, 
+ i.e., Nergal. 
i Allata. 



(249) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Karun * — discharged into the Persian Gulf. 
The confluence of these four rivers is just as 
mythical as the separation in Genesis of one main 
river into four great streams. In the Garden of 
Eden, two persons — a man and his wife — live a 
kind of supernatural life, in daily intercourse 
with God. In the Island of the Blessed, also, 
two persons — a man and his wife — live a su- 
pernatural life beyond the power of death. In 
both Eden and the Island of the Blessed, alone 
in all the earth, grows the Plant or the Tree of 
Life, by eating which one may escape the power 
of death. In both stories man is prevented from 
eating of that tree. Lastly, both Eden and the 
Island are supernatural places, unlike the rest of 
the world, and so guarded by supernatural 
beings as to make approach to them almost, if 
not quite, impossible. 

Let us turn next to Eabani, whom we may re- 
gard as a Babylonian counterpart of Adam. 
Each is represented as a " first man," not born, 
but created by Deity. Eabani's creation out of 
clay reminds us of Adam's creation out of dust. 
Like Adam, he lived for a long time in a state of 
nature among the animals, with whom he was 
on terms of great intimacy. To Adam and to 
Eabani comes a woman — to Adam, Eve ; to Ea- 
bani, Uhat. The effect of these two women on 
the two men is a double one. At first, Eve draws 
away Adam — as Uhat, Eabani — from the society 
of the animals ; and each woman brings her hus- 
band to the sense of his dignity as a human being. 
By the influence of Eve, however, Adam loses 
Paradise and is driven out into the world, where 

* Jensen, " Kosmol. der Bab.," p. 597. 
(250) 



Adam and Eabani 



his children begin the task of building cities and 
of laying the foundation of civilization. Uhat 
also at once takes Eabani away from his happy 
garden, and plunges him into the troubles of civ- 
ilized life. In each instance death indirectly fol- 
lows. The sentence passed upon Adam is " Dust 
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." 
Eabani also was made of clay, and when he dies 
he is '' resolved to dust." It is true, the motives 
of these two stories are absolutely unlike, but we 
should remember that the repulsive motive run- 
ning through the story of Eabani in the epic of 
Izdubar, in all probability was not the original 
motive of a character that is drawn with spirit 
and grace, and with a touch always strong 
and sometimes very delicate. At the present 
time I do not hesitate to say that if there is any 
counterpart in Babylonian literature to the story 
of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, we 
find that counterpart in the ancient epic of 
Izdubar. 

There is one other Babylonian legend which, 
as many scholars have suggested,* may have 
contributed to form a portion of the history of 
Adam. Among the tablets discovered at El 
Amarna in Egypt is one legendary text which 
relates the adventures of a certain hero, Adapa. 
The narrative is briefly as follows: Adapa, a 
fisherman, is plying his calling under the pro- 
tection of his patron, Ea, in the waters of the Per- 
sian Gulf. Suddenly a storm arises, coming up 
from the south in the form of a bird. Adapa 

* Proposed by Sayce, "Academy," 1893, No. 1055. See, also, 
Zimmern, " Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft," 88, p. 169 ; and 
especially Jastrow in " Relig. of Bab.," p. 544 ff., and in " Adam 
and Eve," Chicago, 1899. 



(251) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

is blown into the water, and subdues this storm 
by breaking the bird's wings, in consequence of 
which " for seven days the south wind did not 
blow across the land." Anu, whose dominion 
Adapa has invaded, is enraged, and demands 
from Ea the surrender of the sinning fisherman. 
Ea consents to give up Adapa, but warns him 
how to conduct himself before the gods. 

When thou comest before Anu they will offer thee the 
food of death. Do not eat. They will offer thee the waters 
of death. Do not drink. They will offer thee a garment. 
P t it on. They will offer thee oil. Anoint thyself. The 
order I give thee do not neglect. The word that I speak to 
thee take to heart. * 

This advice turns out to be not wholly disin- 
terested. Adapa is now arraigned before the 
gods. In answer to Ann's question as 'to why 
he has broken the wings of the south wind, 
Adapa replies : 

My lord, for the house of my lord [i. e., Ea] I was fish- 
ing in the midst of the sea. The waters lay still around me 
when the south wind began to blow and forced me under- 
neath. Into the dwelling of the fish it drove me. In the 
anger of my heart [I broke the wings of the south wind]. 

Anu is mollified, but objects to the presence 
of Adapa in the abode of the gods. Since, how- 
ever, Adapa has intruded into heaven and has 
seen what is not permitted mortals to behold, 
the gods agree to confer immortality on him by 
permitting him to partake of their heavenly food 
and drink. 

What shall we grant him? Offer hirn food of life that 
he may eat of it. They brought it to him, but he did not 

* Jastrow's translation. 
(252) 



Legend of Adapa 



eat. Waters of life they brought him, but he did not drink. 
A garment they brought him. He put it on. Oil they 
brought him. He anointed himself. 

Adapa, it will be observed, is obeying literally 
the commands of Ea, all unconscious of the de- 
ception that has been practised on him. It is 
Ea, god of humanity, who begrudges his creature 
immortality. The other gods are astonished at 
Adapa's refusal. 

Anu looked at him and lamented over him. " Come, 
Adapa, why didst thou not eat and drink? Now thou 
canst not live." 

Adapa replies simply: 
" Ea, my lord, commanded me not to eat and drink." 

What Adapa's subsequent fate was we do not 
as yet know, for here the tablet breaks off. 

It is very plain that this legend is concerned 
with the old familiar problem, the possibility of 
man's attaining everlasting life by partaking of 
the food of the gods. Onthis point it corresponds 
well enough with the stories of Adam and Izdubar. 
In some respects the legend of Adapa reminds us 
more of Genesis than it does of the epic poem. 
Izdubar was deprived at last of the magic food 
by an accident or by the greed of the earth spirit, 
while Adam was prevented from eating of the 
Tree of Life by Jahveh, and Adapa was pre- 
vented from eating the food of immortality by 
his lord, Ea. There is another very striking re- 
semblance between the Genesis story and that of 
Adapa which I should hesitate to point out were 
it not that it may throw light on one of the dark- 

(253) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

est verses of Genesis. I only wonder that it has 
escaped the keen-sighted Jastrow. Adapa was 
prevented from eating the magic food by the de- 
ception of Ea. Ea informed him that the food of 
Hfe was food of death and that by partaking of it 
he would die. In the story of Eden, Jahveh, 
hoping to deter Adam from eating the forbidden 
fruit, also misrepresents the effect of eating it. 
*' In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt 
surely die." Have we here the explanation of 
this strange misstatement? It is true, the cases 
are not completel}^ parallel. Adam, in spite of 
the warning, eats, and proves the threat un- 
founded by continuing to live. Moreover, the 
tree concerning which the warning was given 
was not the Tree of Life, but the Tree of the 
Knowledge of good and evil. This last point, 
however, counts for little. The Tree of Knowl- 
edge is the creation of the Jehovist, for which 
no counterpart has been found, and a marked 
confusion has been noticed in his attempt to 
combine his story of the Tree of Knowledge 
with the old myth of the Tree of Life. We may 
admit, then, that the problem in general is much 
the same, and the solution is the same. Even in 
the development of the action of the two narra- 
tives we notice a certain similarity. Adapa has 
gained some knowledge of the secrets of the 
gods; consequently it is deemed best to admit 
him altogether to their charmed circle by be- 
stowing on him the food of immortality. That 
purpose, however, Ea, his lord, thwarts, and 
sends Adapa back to earth. Adam, too, has be- 
come '' like one of us," knowing good and evil, 
and lest he should attain more perfect equality 

(254) 



Superiority of Genesis 



with divine beings, he is thrust out into the world 
without eating of the Tree of Life. 

This is about as far as the similarity extends. 
Adapa is not Adama, as Sayce imagined. He is 
not the first man. He dwells in no magic gar- 
den. And of Eve in this legend we find no trace. 
In the dress which the gods gave Adapa, and 
which, by the advice of Ea, he accepted, we may 
have, as Jastrow suggests, a faint reminder of the • 
coats of skins that Jahveh made for Adam and 
Eve. - 

One word more must be added at the end of^ 
this long examination of the story of the Crea- 
tion and Fall of man. The material setting 
of our story, as we have seen, is largely mythical. 
Those wonderful symbols of Genesis, the Garden 
of Eden, the Serpent, and the Tree of Life, the 
first man and the first woman, the cherubim and 
the flaming sword, are all figures more or less^^ 
familiar to the mythologies of the nations. The 
Tree of Knowledge alone appears to be original. 
But the religious motive of our story, its purity, 
its delicate reserve, its acknowledgment of one 
good God and its sense of man's moral relation 
to God, we do not find in any mythology. The 
nearest approach to the spirit of our narrative is 
found in the religion of Zoroaster, which also is 
a monotheistic and a moral religion. Among the 
Babylonians we find resemblances in the letter 
but not in the spirit. After all is said, the re- 
semblances are slight to the vanishing point in 
comparison with the differences. Far from 
valuing these two chapters of the Bible less, 
we should value them more after having com- 
pared them impartially with the best thoughts 

(^55) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of the greatest nations on the subject of the 
creation of the world and of man. Our au- 
thor used material more or less common to the 
rest of the worlds but the house he reared is 
all his own, and it is built after a plan the Gen- 
tiles did not know. We do not think less of 
Michael Angelo's angel because it is said to be 
hewn out of a piece of marble on which other 
artists had tried their skill and failed ; and when 
we see what a form these old myths take in the 
mind of our writer, how all their impurity, their 
folly, their polytheism disappear when they come 
before us as living symbols of deep, spiritual 
truths, we feel more than ever that the sacred 
authors were well and truly guided, and we mar- 
vel that they were able to make so much out of 
so little. 



(256) 



Difficulties of Genesis 



Chapter Thirteen: 

Cain and Abel 

I REMEMBER once hearing Professor 
Frank Delitzsch say that, easy as the Book 
of Genesis appears to be, in reahty it is the most 
difficuh book in the Bible. The reason which 
the venerable scholar gave for this opinion was 
that under the garb of the simplest narrative, 
this book deals in a masterly way with the deep- 
est problems. It may be compared to a crystal 
lake whose waters are so pure that the lake seems 
shallow until we attempt to fathom it; then the 
bottom recedes, until we begin to suspect that 
there is no bottom. So the Book of Genesis de- 
ceives us by the peculiar lucidity of its style, but 
that it is not an easy book to fathom I think we 
have already proved. We have now merely cast 
a rapid glance over the general structure of the 
work and have touched the most important 
points of three chapters. We might go on in- 
definitely studying those wonderful chapters, and 
yet we could not exhaust their meaning. As the 
Christian Hfe is said to go from glory to glory, 
so he who attempts to explain Genesis goes from 
difficulty to difficulty. I do not feel at liberty, 
however, to dwell longer on the second and third 
chapters, of which we have been speaking, and I 
pass to the fourth and fifth chapters, which con- 

^7 (257) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



tain the account of Cain and Abel and the names 
of the antediluvian patriarchs. Before we begin 
the study of these chapters, it will help us very 
much to make a brief review of the character of 
their contents. 

There is no doubt that a large part of chapter 
four was written by the same master who drew 
for us the picture of the Garden of Eden and the 
Fall. It deals with the same characters and is 
written in the same style. At the first glance 
it would seem to be a direct continuation of the 
third chapter. Eve brings into the world her 
first children — Cain and Abel — and the begin- 
nings of family life and of human progress are 
naturally described. And yet there are a few 
things which are not altogether consistent with 
the supposition that the story of Cain and Abel 
follows immediately on the story of the Fall. It 
startles us a little to see the custom of sacrifice 
quietly introduced without a word of explanation 
and resting on no command of God. Cain's 
wife also is a rather disconcerting figure. In the 
nature of the case, she must have been his sister, 
and with that no one who understands the char- 
acter of the narrative would dream of taking of- 
fence. But no sister of Cain is as much as men- 
tioned. Further, Cain's fear that every one who 
meets him will try to kill him surprises us, as no 
one is supposed to be alive at that time except 
his parents and his wife. His act in building a 
city also produces the impression that other per- 
sons are living on the earth whose existence is as- 
sumed, but of whom our Book makes no mention. 
Many persons have inferred from these incon- 
sistencies that the Book of Genesis did not pre- 



(258) 



Origin of Story of Cain 



tend that the whole human race was descended 
from Adam and Eve; the very fact that several 
genealogies of the first human beings are given 
seems to prove the contrary. Accordingly, the 
myth of the Preadamites has arisen and has re- 
ceived serious attention."^ I must say, however, 
that all such ideas rest on a misconception. It 
is perfect!}^ true that all human races past and 
present cannot be accounted for by the ethno- 
logical notices of Genesis, but whether the 
writers of Genesis were ethnologists in the mod- 
ern sense is a different question. As to that, there 
is nothing to show that in their opinion human 
life originated in more than one centre. All their 
genealogies unquestionably start from Adam and 
Eve as the first man and first woman. The slight 
inconsistencies we have pointed out, therefore, 
must be explained in another way; either they 
are due to small slips of memory on the part of 
the author, or else we have here the remains 
of several conflicting narratives. As these chap- 
ters are in a rather fragmentar}^ condition, and 
bear traces of having been pieced together and 
worked over more than once, I should prefer 
the second alternative. 

That, however, is the least of our troubles. 
How came the story of Cain and Abel to arise at 
all? Now this may seem a strange question 
to ask, and it would be strange if we were 
standing on firm, historical ground, where 
things happen by necessity, or if we were deal- 
ing with distinct traditions of ancient histori- 
cal events. It seems to me hardly necessary to 

*" Preadamites, or a Demonstration of Men before Adam." 
Alex. Winchell. 2d ed. Chicago, 1880. 



(259) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

prove again that this is not the case. No 
human history, no human tradition goes back 
to the beginning of human Hfe on this earth. 
In these chapters, which deal with antedilu- 
vians living eight or nine hundred years apiece, 
with the marriages of angels and men, and with 
giants and heroes, we are still in the domain of 
myth, not of history. But the pecuHarity of 
myth is that it is composed with a purpose, and 
does not arise from the necessity of nature; there- 
fore we have always a right to inquire what its 
purpose may be. 

The conception which lies behind the story 
of the fratricide of Cain is very obscure. It is 
true, it shows the development of sin in man. 
The disobedience of Adam becomes murder in 
Adam's son, but that will hardly account for the 
murder of Abel. This wonderfully living and 
delicate picture did not arise from the mere ab- 
stract thought that sin grows, and that the sins 
of fathers are visited on children. It had its 
origin in something more like itself. 

For the same reason I cannot accept uncon- 
ditionally another explanation that is finding 
much favor among scholars at the present time. 
It is suggested that many of the personages who 
are introduced into the early chapters of Genesis, 
like Judah, Moab, Edom, etc., were created to 
account for the origin of peoples and places bear- 
ing the same names. Every nation was supposed 
to spring from some man, and hence where no 
well-known character was at hand, it was neces- 
sary to invent one. That is undoubtedly true. 
It was in this way, they say, that the story of 
Cain arose. The nucleus out of which the story 

(260) 



The Kenites 



grew was '' the mark of Cain," and the curse of 

God which condemned him to a Hfe of wandering 
and vagabondage. Long after, when the Book 
of Genesis came to be written, the Hebrews 
were well acquainted with a people whose 
strange, nomadic habits filled them with wonder. 
These were the Kenites, or, as we might pro- 
nounce their name, the Cainites. Of course 
they must be descended from a common ances- 
tor whose name was Cain. The mark (skart) 
affixed to the person of Cain was probably one 
of those marks of blood relationship known and 
respected by members of the tribe. You will 
remember that the relations of the Israelites with 
the Kenites lasted for a long time. They are 
described as one of the ten tribes of Palestine 
in the time of Abraham.* Moses's father-in-law, 
Jethro, was supposed to belong to the tribe of 
the Kenites, as was also Heber, the husband of 
Jael. At all times they were a wandering peo- 
ple — even as early as when Moses led the flock 
of Jethro to the back side of the wilderness, f It 
would also seem that they were a weak, parasiti- 
cal tribe, now attached to one stronger people, 
now to another. Later on, when most of the 
other tribes had acquired fixed abodes, they 
alone could not lay aside their nomadic habit, 
but continued to wander from place to place 
without possessions. A very singular account 
of the Kenites is preserved in the thirty-fifth 
chapter of Jeremiah, where Jaazaniah and his 
brothers refused to drink wine at the invitation 
of the prophet. Most persons mistake the mean- 
ing of this. The Kenites' unwilHngness to drink 

*Gen. XV. ig. f Exod. iii. i. 



(261) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

wine did not spring from their dread of intem- 
perance, but from their aversion to the vine as the 
symbol of agriculture and a settled life. The pro- 
hibition of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, extended 
not only to drinking wine, but to the cultivation 
of the soil and to Hving in houses. They take 
great pains to explain to Jeremiah that it was 
only the fear of the Assyrian invasion which had 
induced them for a time to forsake their noma- 
dic life and to take up their abode in Jerusalem. 

These things must have struck the Hebrews 
as very strange, especially since the Kenites 
likewise adored Jahveh.* Accordingly it is 
said that to account for the origin of this strange 
people, so like themselves in some respects, so 
unlike in others, the Hebrew writers invented 
the story of Cain. They asserted that the pro- 
genitor of the Kenite tribe had committed a ter- 
rible crime, in consequence of which his pos- 
terity was doomed to wander forever without 
an abiding resting place. 

As the Kenites made this wandering part of 
their religion, it was natural to suppose that it 
had been imposed on them by Jahveh. In re- 
gard to the particular crime committed by Cain, 
it is well known that the nomads often lived by 
violence and plunder, and that they sometimes 
entered into brotherhood with stable communi- 
ties. Hence Cain is described as the brother of 
the shepherd Abel, whom he afterwards slew. 
This is certainly a most ingenious explanation. I 
mention it with respect, because it was proposed 
by a great scholar,t and because it has been de- 

*II Kings, xi. 15, and Jerem. xxxv. 

f J. Wellhansen, "Composition des Hex.," 10 ff. 

(262) 



Wellhausen's Theory 



fended by other great scholars.* At the same 
time, I see grave difficulties in the way of ac- 
cepting it. Leaving out of sight the fact that 
in this case the story of Abel's murder arose as 
a mere result of inductive reasoning, and was 
manufactured, so to say, out of whole cloth, f 
we may very well wonder if the Jehovist would 
have considered a mean people like the Kenites 
of sufficient importance, however peculiar their 
habits, to place them at the very beginning of 
humanity. There are other grave objections to 
this theory as a sufficient explanation of Cain. In 
the first place, Cain is represented in Genesis as 
the farmer, :t and Abel as the wandering shepherd. 
Secondly, on this hypothesis, Cain's building 
the city would be altogether incomprehensible. 
It is veryfplain that this contradictory act must 
have some explanation which the wandering life 
of the Kenites cannot give it. Lastly, it would 
be strange, to say the least, for our Jehovist to 
attempt to derive the Kenites from Cain, since 
on his own showing all Cain's posterity perished 
in the Flood. A writer must be strangely for- 
getful to contradict himself to that extent. It is 
true, the Jehovist does speak of the descendants 
of Cain — Jabal, Jubal and Tubal — as the ances- 
tors of various classes of men alive in his day, but 
it is to be remembered that these heroes are de- 
scribed as inventors of arts, not as heads of 
tribes. The arts may have survived the deluge, 
though the inventors perished. Perhaps we 

*Stade, Z. A. T. W. Kainzeichen, pp. 250-8, 1894. 

f Holzinger's " Genesis," pp. 50 and 51. 

i I ought to say, however, that the advocates of this theory re- 
gard Cain the farmer as a totally distinct person, the subject of a 
different tradition. 



(263) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

ought not to lay too much stress on an argument 
of this nature, as it would tax the memory of 
any historian to bear in mind all the conse- 
quences of a deluge which was supposed to have 
cut the history of humanity in two. So, with- 
out entirely withdrawing this argument, I will 
add another of great weight. As we read to 
the end of the fourth chapter, we come to the 
curious little song of Lamech, which unques- 
tionably is one of the oldest fragments in the 
whole Bible. But in that ancient chant Cain is 
already known as a notorious murderer. La- 
mech compares his murders with Cain's murder. 
He considers himself superior to Cain because 
he has killed more men. That in itself is con- 
clusive proof that the story of Cain and Abel is 
of immense antiquity, and that it is not a manu- 
factured tale put together at a late date to ac- 
count for the origin of the Kenites.* I find 
myself, therefore, unable to accept this ex- 
tremely ingenious explanation as sufficient in 
itself to account for the history of Cain and Abel, 
and I will mention one or two other attempts to 
solve this problem which do not fall much behind 
the first in keenness of constructive imagination. 
Lenormant t calls attention to the fact that 
the Babylonians, like ourselves, divided the year 
into twelve months, and that for each month 
there was a corresponding sign of the zodiac, 
about which many traditions clustered. You 
will remember, the twelve tablets of Izdubar are 
supposed to be arranged with reference to the 

* The " Mark of Cain," on which Stade and Cheyne lay so 
much stress, they do not succeed in finding among the Kenites. 
f " Beginnings of History," chapter iv. 

(264) 



Lenormant's Theory 



signs of the zodiac. Now the name of the third 
month in the Babylonian calendar was " the 
month of brick-making," and a religious cere- 
mony accompanied the manufacture of bricks 
during this month. The origin of the custom is 
perfectly plain. During the third month, Sivan 
(corresponding to parts of May and June), the 
water of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which had 
been rising all through March and April, began 
to fall, and the soft and moist condition of the 
soil made it suitable to be moulded into bricks; 
whereas, after the sun had baked the clay, it 
would be too hard. From this fact and from the 
circumstance that religious ceremonies accom- 
panied the work of brick-making, it would be 
very natural that some myth should have arisen 
in regard to brick-making, connected especially 
with the building of a city. That is the first step. 
The second is this: The sign of the zodiac 
for the third month among the Babylonians, as it 
still is among us, was the constellation Gemini, 
the sign of the twins. So we see in Babylon, two 
brothers were associated with the making of 
brick, and perhaps with the building of a city. 
Lenormant, therefore, goes on to collect all the 
stories he can find of two brothers who united 
in building a city, one of whom was afterward 
killed by the other. The most striking example, 
in fact the only satisfactory instance, is that of 
Romulus and Remus. You remember when 
these brothers were about to build Rome, Rom- 
ulus wished to build it on one hill, Remus on 
another. Naturally each wished to call the 
city after his own name. When the augurs de- 
cided in favor of Romulus, and he had already 



(265) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

raised a wall, Remus derisively leaped over it, 
which so incensed his brother that he killed 
Remus on the spot. To this example Lenor- 
mant adds several other stories from obscure 
portions of Greek mythology — for example, the 
tale of the Cabiri and of the Corybantes, of 
whom, however, there were three brothers, not 
two. He also cites the old custom of immuring 
a human being in the wall of a city, preferably a 
virgin. Lenormant is not able, however, to 
point to a story at all like that of Cain and Abel, 
in Babylonian literature, nor indeed to such a 
story in Semitic literature in general.* I am, 
therefore, obliged to say that his suggestion of 
a widespread myth in which one brother kills an- 
other in building a city, fails altogether to supply 
the material of the story of Cain and Abel. Such 
a myth may or may not have something to do 
with our narrative; in the present condition of 
our knowledge it is impossible to say. There is 
one circumstance in the history of Cain which 
seems to strengthen Lenormant's hypothesis. 
After Cain went out from the presence of Jahveh, 
one of his first acts was to build a city, which he 
called after the name of his son Enoch. The 
building of this city all commentators have felt 
to be a strange contradiction, as it appears to be 
in direct violation of the curse that Jahveh had 
just laid on Cain, which compelled him to lead a 
wandering life. It would seem from this that 
one old tradition associated Cain with the build- 

* The best example I can recall is the Phoenician legend 
ascribed by Philo Byblius to Sanchuniathon. There it is stated 
that Hypsuranios, founder of Tyre, quarrelled with his brother 
Usous, though he did not kill Usous. See Cory's " Fragments," 
6 and 7. 

(266) 



Budde's Theory 



ing of the first city; but with the building of this 
city Abel has nothing to do, as he was already 
dead, and the city was built in another country. 
I will mention only one other attempt to solve 
this problem. It is that of Professor Budde in 
his searching — if rather obscure — '' Urgeschich- 
te." * It has at least the merit of being drawn 
directly from the Scripture. If you look at the 
fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis, you will see 
that they contain two genealogical tables of the 
men who lived before the Flood. The first traces 
the posterity of Cain; the second, the posterity 
of his younger brother Seth. Of these persons 
only some of the descendants of Seth are saved 
from the Flood, while all Cain's posterity perished 
at that time. Now, it would be very natural for 
people to ask why this happened, and the only 
reason they could very well give for the fact that 
all the descendants of Cain perished is that Cain 
himself, the progenitor of the whole family, must 
have been a very wicked person. Evidently it 
was on account of some terrible crime of his that 
all his descendants died a violent death. But in 
Lamech's ancient song we have at least a sugges- 
tion of what Cain's crime must have been. La- 
mech compares Cain with himself; but Lamech, 
by his own confession, was a murderer who had 
slain at least two men. Plainly, then, Cain must 
have been a murderer also. But as Cain is uni- 
formly represented as the oldest son of Adam, 
whom could he have murdered ? Not his father 
or his mother, else what would have become of 
the human race? It is true he might have mur- 
dered his sister, but as that would not have been 

* Chapter vi., " Kain's Brudermord." 



(267) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

regarded as so great a crime, it is more natural 
to suppose that he murdered a brother. The 
very name of Cain's living brother, Seth (set in 
place of, compensation), seems to imply a third 
brother who died young and left no children. 
Evidently it is he whom Cain murdered. What 
could that brother's name have been? Since 
Cain, the first born, had followed his father's call- 
ing and was a farmer, only one other occupa- 
tion was left for his younger brother. He must 
have been a shepherd. But the Hebrew name 
for shepherd is Jabal (pronounced Yabal), as 
Lamech's son, the father of all who have cattle, 
was actually called. So Cain's brother, by a 
slight change of sounds, was called Abel, and 
that name, which means a breath — evanescence 
— was prophetical of his sad and early demise. 
But why did Cain kill him? Lamech tells us, 
out of revenge. The fault therefore lay alto- 
gether with Cain. The murder sprang from a 
wicked heart. But an evil heart is not pleasing 
to God. What could have driven Cain, then, 
to this act, except the fact that his brother Abel 
enjoyed the favor of God, which, on account of 
his wicked heart, he did not enjoy? And the 
favor of God might be discovered most naturally 
from the way God received the two brothers 
when they appeared before Him. So Budde 
discovers the whole story in the two genealogical 
tables and the hints contained in the song of 
Lamech. It would be hard to point to a more 
ingenious piece of constructive criticism, but it 
is safe to say if the story were not before us, no 
one of us would be sharp enough to evoke it out 
of these small hints. 

(268) 



Origin of Story 



I will not carry the discussion further, because 
the problem as it Hes before us cannot be con- 
clusively solved. Each one of these three in- 
genious efforts has something to recommend it, 
and one of the solutions by no means excludes 
others. There seems to have been a very an- 
cient myth at the bottom of the narrative, as 
Lenormant suggests. The name of Cain may 
have been suggested by the Kenites, and their 
tribal marks and peculiar habits may very well 
have contributed to the formation of the story, 
as Wellhausen asserts; and the murder of Abel 
accords perfectly with other parts of the fourth 
and fifth chapters, as Budde so cleverly shows. 

About all that can be asserted with confidence 
of the origin of the story of Cain and Abel, I 
think, is the following: 

1. That wonderfully graphic and living pic- 
ture did not originate as the result of abstract 
speculation to account for the Kenites or the two 
genealogies of Cain and Seth, or to prove that 
sin increases. 

2. On the contrary, it already existed as a 
popular story among the Hebrews, and possibly 
among other peoples of Canaan, long before ab- 
stract speculation of any sort arose. This is 
shown conclusively by the allusion to a murder 
committed by Cain in the ancient song of La- 
mech. 

3. The touching and beautiful narrative which 
stands in our Bible is certainly the work of the 
Jehovist who wrote the third chapter of Genesis, 
as is apparent from several verbal coincidences.* 

* Gen. ill. 16 : Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall 
rule over thee. Cf. iv. 7 : Unto thee is his desire but thou 



(269) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

This writer probably found an old popular myth, 
which he completely transformed. 

4. As to the origin of this myth, it would be 
no more than conjecture to assign it either to 
Babylonia or to Canaan. It would appear, how- 
ever, from the fact that the nomadic life was re- 
garded as a curse, that the myth was hardly of 
Hebrew origin. The Hebrews, with their splen- 
did traditions of the patriarchs, were disposed to 
regard the nomadic life as the life most worthy 
of man. 

5. The names of Cain and Abel appear to have 
been formed originally with reference to the 
parts they play. Cain, which is interpreted as 
** creature," or '' possession," means also '' a 
spear," ^ while the name of Abel, " breath," 
" nothing," " perishableness," was undoubtedly 
given to him in allusion to the fact that he was 
slain by Cain and had but a fleeting existence.f 

Let us now go on to the interpretation of the 
chapter : 

Chapter iv. i. And the man knew Havvah, his wife, 
and she conceived and gave birth ta Cain, and she said, 
" I have gotten a man with Jahveh." 

By this play on words (quanah, to acquire, 
and quain, the acquisition), the author assumes 
that Eve spoke Hebrew, just as Adam spoke 

shouldst rule over him. Gen. iii. 17 : Cursed is the ground for thy 
sake. Cf. iv. II : Cursed art thou from the ground. Gen. iii. 9 : 
(After Adam's sin), where art thou ? Cf. iv. 9 : Where is Abel, thy 
brother ? 

*Dillmann, "Gen.,"i. 183. 

f Dillmann, " Gen.," i. 184. Schrader derives Abel from the 
Babylonian Habal, which means son, a not uncommon proper 
name. Cheyne regards the first meaning of Cain as "artificer." 
Encycl. Biblica, art. "Cain." 

(270) 



Cain's Offering 



Hebrew when he called his wife's name Hav- 
vah.* The expression "I have gotten a man 
with Jahveh " is a curious one. The natural 
translation would be, '' I have obtained Jahveh 
as a husband," which would be meaningless, so 
we must rather understand it, " I have gotten 
a man-child with the help and blessing of Jah- 
veh." 

2. And again she gave birth to his brother, Abel; and 
Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain was a farmer. 

It is not definitely stated that Cain and Abel 
were twins. The childhood of Cain and Abel is 
not mentioned. When they come before us 
again they are both men — how old we are not 
told; but from Abel's name, and from the fact 
that he had no wife nor children, it would appear 
that he died very young. Only the two oldest 
occupations known to civiHzed man could well 
be spoken of here. Cain, the elder, naturally fol- 
lows his father's calling, so nothing is left for 
Abel but the care of the flocks. 

3. It happened after a number of days that Cain presented 
to Jahveh an offering of the fruits of the ground. And 
Abel also presented to Him an offering of the first born 
of his flock and especially their fat pieces. 

Strange to say, the idea of making an ofYering 
to Jahveh seems to have originated with Cain. 
It is not said that God demanded this gift, which 
appears to have been entirely voluntary on Cain's 
part. It therefore seems a little hard that Cain's 
present should have been rejected altogether.! 

* Addis, " Documents of the Hexateuch," p. 7, note 2. 

f The offering of sacrifice to Jahveh, so naturally introduced, 
indicates a much more advanced condition of human development 
than the stage we have reached. 

(271) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

In connection with Abers offering we might ex- 
pect some allusion to the discovery of fire; and 
the absolute silence of Genesis as to this first and 
most important of human discoveries indicates 
that we are not dealing here with genuinely 
primitive myths. The offering of man's first 
gift to God, freely and willingly rendered, to 
satisfy the need of man's heart, is beautifully in- 
troduced. 

4, 5. And Jahveh looked with favor on Abel and his 
offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with 
favor. 

Why was this? It surely did not He in the 
nature of the gifts themselves, as Lenormant 
thinks,* as if the bloody sacrifice of an animal 
were more pleasing to Jahveh than the fruit of 
the field. In that case, even if Jahveh preferred 
Abel's gift, he need not have rejected Cain's 
altogether. Each brought what he had — Cain 
his fruits, Abel his lambs. The reason why Jah- 
veh accepted the one and rejected the other was 
not on account of the gift itself, nor because 
Cain was ignorant of the correct order of ritual, 
but because Jahveh discovered sin lurking in the 
heart of Cain. Therefore He would not accept 
his offering. Exactly how Jahveh exhibited His 
acceptance of Abel's gift and His rejection of 
Cain's we are not told. Probably by one of those 
signs by which sacrifices were considered of good 
or evil omen. 

5. And Cain became burning hot, and his countenance 
fell [i.e., it drooped with the air of one who is vexed and 
dejected], f 

* " Beginnings of History," p. 174. f Dillmann. 

(272) 



God's Compassion for Cain 



But though Jahveh has rejected Cain's offer- 
ing, He has by no means rejected Cain. He 
makes at once an earnest effort to recall Cain to 
Himself and to induce him to resist sin. This 
is one of the most beautiful touches in the story. 
God does not leave Cain to himself until his mur- 
derous purpose ripens. He pleads with him as 
He pleads with all tempted men. It is a fine 
touch and worthy of our author that he enter- 
tains no fatalistic notion that Adam's sin has de- 
scended on Cain. On the contrary, Cain is free 
to do right. The only argument God uses with 
Cain is the solemn " you ought," and if he ought, 
then he can. God's language to Cain is kind and 
affectionate. 

6, 7. And Jahveh said to Cain, " Why art thou angry? and 
why has thy countenance fallen?. If thou doest well, shall 
it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin crouches 
before the door, and its appetite is turned on thee, but thou 
shouldst rule over it." 

Sin is here described as a wild beast ready to 
spring on Cain and devour him — a figure that 
well describes the fierce outburst of his wrath. 
It somewhat surprises us to hear a house-door 
mentioned; evidently this is a little slip. It is 
amazing in this early work to see the pity of God 
altogether turned toward Cain, not toward Abel. 
God knows that the murderer, even more than 
the victim, needs His compassion. Cain, in 
the meantime, answers nothing. He is moved 
neither by pleading nor by warning. He is 
nursing his black wrath against his brother until 
he shall have the opportunity to strike. 

8. And Cain said unto Abel, his brother. . , . 
18 (273) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



What he said is not given. Several ancient 
versions add : 

Let us go into the fields. 

The unsuspecting Abel accepts the invitation, 
fearing no evil. 

And it came to pass when they were in the field that Cain 
arose against Abel his brother and killed him. 

Instantly the voice of Jahveh is heard again, 
not now pleading, but asking Cain an awful ques- 
tion. 

9. And Jahveh said to Cain, " Where is Abel, thy 
brother? " 

Cain, however, is still obdurate. He thinks, 
perhaps, that Jahveh does not know. If so, he 
will not confess. So he replies with a lie, and 
adds to it an insolent sneer. How much more 
hardened and wicked Cain has become than 
Adam was ! 

And he said, " I do not know. Am I my brother's 
keeper? " 

Am I my brother's keeper? There are few 
verses in the Bible that cut deeper intc the con- 
science than this. What of those with whom 
we have sinned, whom we have tempted, whose 
happiness we have stolen? Do we imagine we 
shall never hear God calling us to a sharp and 
terrible account for them? Why should we 
care? They were responsible for themselves. 
That is precisely what Cain said. He denied all 
responsibility for Abel, but at that moment he 

(274) 



Cain's Punishment 



was responsible for Abel's death. This time, 
however, the terrible voice will not be silenced. 
It says to him : 

10, II. "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's 
blood is crying to me from the ground. And now thou art 
driven by a curse from the ground which has opened its 
mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand." 

This is not intended figuratively, but literally. 
The earth, like a living being, is described as 
opening her lips to drink Abel's spilt blood, 
which informs Jahveh of the murder by crying 
aloud to Him in pain. No more will the earth 
yield her genial fruits to the murderer. For 
him henceforth she is barren — a terrible descrip- 
tion of the iron world in which the criminal lives, 
and of the way existence itself casts him off. 

12, 13. " When thou tillest the ground it shall no more 
yield to thee its strength. A wanderer and a fugitive shalt 
thou be on the earth." And Cain said to Jahveh, " The 
punishment of my iniquity is too great for me to bear." 

The Fathers translated this, " My sin is too 
great to be forgiven." That would be a finer 
and a holier thought, but it is not Cain's thought. 
He is broken by fear, not by sorrow. He still 
thinks only of himself, not of Abel nor of God's 
forgiveness. 

14. " Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the 
face of the ground, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I 
shall be a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and it will 
happen that whoever finds me will slay me." 

By reason of the curse Jahveh has laid on the 
cultivated ground it will no longer yield Cain a 
living. He is, therefore, obliged to relinquish 

(275) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

his home and his agriculture and must become 
a wanderer. The expression " from thy face I 
shall be hidden " is a curious one. It implies 
that Jahveh dwells in only one land, and that as 
soon as Cain leaves this country Jahveh will see 
him and protect him no more. The author 
seems insensibly to regard the land where these 
events took place as Palestine, the country of 
Jahveh. There some respect for human life ex- 
ists, but outside of Palestine manners are wild 
and rough, and the law of the desert is revenge 
for blood. That the author has before his mind 
a more advanced state of society than the story 
admits is further proved by Cain's dread of being 
slain. 

15. And Jahveh said to Cain, " Therefore whoever mur- 
ders Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." 

Jahveh admits the reasonableness of Cain's 
fear and takes precautions against the danger. 

And Jahveh set a mark on Cain, lest any one finding him 
should smite him. 

This mark is not a mere sign or pledge of Jah- 
veh's promise, like the sudden breaking out of 
the sun (Rabbi Jehuda), or a warning placard 
which Jahveh wrote and set up somewhere, but 
a mark affixed to Cain's person. What the na- 
ture of that sign was we are not told. Some 
have thought of a horn fastened to Cain's fore- 
head, others, of leprosy on his face, or of some 
other horrifying and repulsive physical stigma. 
The sign, however, was not intended to brand 
Cain as a murderer, but to warn those who saw 
him not to hurt him.* 

* Dillmann. 

(276) 



Land of Nod 



i6. And Cain went out from the face of Jahveh, and dwelt 
in the land of Nod, in front of Eden. 

Nod was not any particular country, any more 
than the Garden of Eden is. It means '' land of 
wandering," and merely describes further Cain's 
fugitive and miserable life. 



(277) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Fourteen: 
"T^he Antediluvian Patriarchs, 

WE come now to one of those passages 
which prove conclusively that the Book 
of Genesis is a composite work, a Mosaic, in this 
sense at least, that it was formed at different 
times by different hands, not following alto- 
gether the same plan. 

Immediately following the story of Cain and 
Abel are three genealogical tables, whose pur- 
pose is to trace the descent of mankind from 
Adam and Eve, and to give us the names of the 
patriarchs who lived before the Flood. The 
first of these tables also describes the beginnings 
of human culture and the discovery of the arts. 
Now, of all things in the world, genealogies are 
to most persons the least interesting. St. Paul, 
among others, felt a great repugnance to this 
kind of literature, and particularly warned Tim- 
othy to pay no attention to " fables and endless 
genealogies, which minister questions rather 
than godly edifying." * In saying this St. Paul 
well knew what he was talking about. All an- 
cient genealogies are crammed full of fables, and 
there is scarcely anything that gives rise to so 
many " questions." The provoking thing about 
these questions is that they can hardly ever be 
*i Tim. i. 4. 

(278) 



Three Genealogical Tables 



answered satisfactorily. These three genealo- 
gies, in particular, open the door to a world of 
inquiry, to do justice to which would require a 
large work. I shall therefore deal with this sub- 
ject more superficially than I have dealt as yet 
with any part of our task, and content myself 
with attempting to solve the main problems, 
merely indicating some of the innumerable sec- 
ondary questions which arise on every side. 
The passages involved consist of the remainder 
of the fourth chapter following the story of Cain, 
and the whole of the fifth chapter. The first 
table * traces the descent of Cain; the second,t 
which is much mutilated and very brief, origi- 
nally traced the descent of mankind from Seth ; 
while the third table,:]: which is the fullest, also 
traces the descent through Seth. 

Looking for a moment at the three tables, we 
see that the first table traces the posterity of Cain 
through seven generations, where it suddenly 
breaks ofT. The names of the patriarchs — in- 
cluding their progenitor Adam — are written 
in our English Bible thus : Adam, Cain, Enoch, 
Irad, Mehujael, Methusael and Lamech. From 
Lamech the line of descent, which has been 
single, divides into three branches in his three 
sons, Jabal, Jubal and Tubal, and there is also a 
daughter, Naamah. 

The second tree is a very short one because 
almost all its branches have been lopped off. It 
begins again with Adam. 

Chapter iv. 25. And Adam knew his wife again, and 
she bare a son and called his name Seth. 

*Gen. ivo 17-22. f Gen. iv. 25, 26. | Gen. v. 

(279) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Seth's posterity, as I have said, is very briefly 
noticed in this^ account. We are only told that 
a son was born to him named Enos; then this 
genealogy is cut short to make room for the 
third table, which is by a different hand. It is 
the work of the Priestly Writer, the author of 
the first chapter of Genesis, who reappears here 
(chapter v.) with his usual introduction, " This 
is the book of the generations," with his mo- 
notonous style and his oft-repeated formulae, all 
which are impossible to mistake. 

Chapter v. i, 2, 3. This is the book of the genealogy of 
Adam: in the day that God created man, in the likeness of 
God made He him; male and female created He them, and 
blessed them, and called their name Adam [i.e., man], in 
the day when they were created. And Adam lived one 
hundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own like- 
ness, after his image, and called his name Seth. 

4. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth 
were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters. 

5. And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred 
and thirty years, and he died. 

So, without a particle of change of style, and 
without comment on the lives and deeds of these 
antediluvians who, with the sole exception of 
Enoch, seem expressly created to beget children, 
to live an enormous period, and to die, the narra- 
tive goes on to Noah. Then, one verse occurs 
which does not seem to belong in the place where 
it stands, but which appears once to have formed 
the end of the mutilated second table of the Jeho- 
vist document, both from the fact that it contains 
the name Jahveh, and for other reasons that I 
will not now state. 

Chapter v. 29. And he (Lamech) called his name Noah, 
saying, " The same shall comfort us concerning our work 
and toil of our hands, because of the ground which Jahveh 
has cursed." 

(280) 



Ancient Genealogies 



Going back to our third genealogy of the 
Priestly Writer, we find his tree to be as follows : 
Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, 
Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem, 
Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah. Now 
there are several things to which I must call your 
attention at once. From Adam to the Flood, 
according to the first genealogy, there are seven 
generations; and from Adam to the Flood, ac- 
cording to the third table, there are ten genera- 
tions. The first line divides with Lamech into 
three branches — Jabal, Jubal and Tubal — and 
the line of the third table divides with Noah into 
three branches — Shem, Ham and Japheth. 

I ought to say at the outset that such attempts 
to trace the descent of the men who were sup- 
posed to live before the Flood are very numer- 
ous in ancient literature. Almost all such gene- 
alogies are constructed on the same principle, 
and consist of either seven or ten generations — 
seven and ten being sacred and favorite num- 
bers. In Chaldea we have the genealogy of Be- 
rosus, beginning with Alorus, and tracing his 
descent through nine other mythical kings to 
Xisuthros,* the Babylonian Noah.* This tradi- 
tion has been preserved in three forms, through 
Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus and Aby- 
denus,t but they all agree in making the kings 
before the Deluge ten in number, and the total 
length of their reigns, which are separately cal- 
culated, covers the enormous period of 120 Sari, 
or 432,000 years. This, on an average, would 
give the antediluvians a reign of 43,200 years 

* Cory's " Fragments," pp. 30 and 31, 
f Ibid., pp. 26 to 33. 



(281) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

apiece, in comparison with which the figures of 
Genesis are exceedingly modest. These kings 
are probably all mythical personages. 

Among the Hindus the Mahabharata speaks 
of seven Maharshis, or great saints of antiquity.* 
We hear also of seven Pragapati, or patriarchs. 
The Laws of Manu, f in describing the Creation, 
first mention by name ten great sages and then 
seven other Manus of measureless power. The 
same system of dividing the first age of the world 
among ten mythical kings is found among the 
Persians, and also, I believe, among the Chinese 
and the Egyptians. if It would not repay us to 
plunge into the obscure mythologies of these 
nations, but the mere fact that a mythical tra- 
dition of seven or ten patriarchs exists every- 
where, proves that our two lists do not rest 
on history, but on an almost universal tradi- 
tion. Among the Gentiles these seven or 
ten patriarchs are of divne origin or charac- 
ter. So they may once nave been among the 
Hebrews. At present, however, almost all their 
mythical qualities have disappeared, and they 
come before us as men. Several rather crude 
attempts have been made to give these patriarchs 
a place in the Pantheon of the nations [Enoch is 
the sun god; Tubal Cain, Vulcan; Jubal, Apollo; 
Noa(c)h, lacchos, etc.],§ but these suggestions 
have borne no fruits; the Priestly Writer has 
done his work too well. 

Practically the only thing that separates the 

* Wilson's "Vishnu Parana," pp. 23, 49, note, 
fi- 34-36. 

:J: Not, however, in Manetho. See Lenormant, 230, 231. 
§ Bochart, Buttmann, and others. See especially Buttmann's 
*' Mytholoo^ie," i. eh. 7. 

(282) 



Longevity Explained 



antediluvians in Genesis from the rest of human- 
ity is their great age. The most Hberal physi- 
ologists estimate the extreme longevity of man 
at about two hundred years ; probably no human 
being has ever attained that age. But to the 
fable that human life may endure nine hundred or 
nine hundred and fifty years, physiology will not 
listen. A very old psalm * ascribed to Moses 
estimates the duration of human life as seventy or 
eighty years : '' the days of our age are three- 
score years and ten," etc. It is useless to think 
of " simpler and better food," or that the word 
used for year does not mean a year in our sense. 
No food, however simple, will sustain human 
life for nine hundred years, and the word used 
for year means twelve months and nothing else. 
This difficulty, which exists only in the Priestly 
Writer's document, not in that of the Jehovist, 
who says nothing about ages, arose in a very sim- 
ple manner. The Priestly Writer had before him A 
to begin with, exaggerated traditions, which the ' 
Hebrews shared with other nations, beside which 
his own statements are modest enough. Apart \ 
from this, he was obliged by custom and tradi- ' 
tion to divide the first age of the world, from the 
Creation to the Flood, among not more than ten 
men. Unless he had made their ages very long, 
the age of the world would have been absurdly 
short, lasting but a few hundred years. These 
considerations and the universal belief, not ap- 
parently founded on fact, that the earlier genera- 
tions of men lived much longer than we, 
sufficiently explain the longevity of the patri- 
archs. But these facts, and also the manner in 

* Psalm xc. 



(283) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

which both our genealogies at the end divide 
into three branches, prove conclusively that they 
are artificial productions, not history. This im- 
pression will be strengthened by a study of the 
genealogies themselves. 

When we compare the two longer genealo- 
gies (the first and the third), what surprises us 
most is their great similarity. Two of the names 
are inverted in order. Several names are spelled 
somewhat differently in the two lists, but on the 
whole they are very much alike. If before the 
first genealogy of Cain we place the second, or 
short, genealogy of Seth with Noah at the end, 
we should have almost a dupHcate of the third 
genealogy. 

(2) Adam (3) Adam 



Seth 


Seth 


Enos 


Enos 


(i) Cain 


Cainan 


Enoch 


Mahalaleel 


Irad 


Jared 


Mehujael 


Enoch 


Methusael 


Methuselah 


Lemech 


Lamech 


.Noah 


Noah 



It seems to me that any one comparing these 
two lists would suppose that they represent only 
two genealogies of the same family, in which, as 
often happens, a few names have become dis- 
arranged and a few are misspelled. And yet, 
according to the statements of Genesis, they re- 
present for the most part two entirely different 
families. One is the family of the murderer 

(284) 



Cain and Seth 



Cain, and the other is the family of the pious 
Seth. Further than that we have to remember 
that these two genealogies belong to two en- 
tirely separate documents. Whoever originally 
composed them, one is part of the work of the 
Jehovist or the Elohist, and the other belongs 
to the Priestly Writer. I shall not stop now to 
examine the names themselves, or to inquire 
which is the more original form, or what the 
names signify. Unfortunately, our knowledge 
is still too imperfect to enable us to perform this 
task satisfactorily. Scholars are not agreed as 
to whether several of these names are Hebrew 
words at all, and as to their meanings there is 
much difference of opinion. Leaving, then, 
these questions, and merely continuing our com- 
parison, the only conclusion we can come to is 
that these two lists of antediluvian patriarchs 
(the first and the third), so astonishingly ahke, 
represent two distinct Hebrew traditions — one 
deriving the race, in part, at least, through Cain, 
and the other through Seth. It will be noticed 
that Cain appears in the third list also under the 
name of Cainan as the great-grandson of Adam, 
and that the Jehovist also mentions Seth as 
Adam's son, although a later son. These two 
tables, therefore, must have been originally pre- 
pared without reference to each other, in ac- 
cordance with the two ancient traditions. Each 
attempted to preserve a list of the patriarchs who 
lived before the Flood, and those lists, as we have 
seen, are very similar.* The editor, or Redactor, 

* The reason why this similarity surprises ns is because we er- 
roneously regard these genealogies as historical, which they are not. 
Did they really exhibit the descent of two different men (Seth and 



(285) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of Genesis simply found them in two different 
documents and placed them side by side without 
any attempt to reconcile them, which it would 
have been impossible for him to do without re- 
writing them and taking great liberties with ven- 
erable names too well known to be altered. With 
these words of explanation, let us pass on to the 
genealogies themselves, and I think it will be best 
to speak of the third table first. That, you re- 
member, is the work of the Priestly Writer; it 
begins with the fifth chapter, '' This is the book 
of the genealogy of Adam." 

In order to understand the general purpose 
of this genealogy, and the point of view of the 
writer, I must remind you of several curious 
facts. The fifth chapter, with the exception of 
one verse, is the work of the great author of the 
first chapter of Genesis. There is no reason to 
suppose that anything has been lost out of this 
part of his composition. His two chapters have 
been cut in two by the introduction of the Jeho- 
vist's story of Adam and Eve, Eden, the Fall, 
the story of Cain and Abel, and Cain's genealogy. 
If the work of the Priestly Writer stood as he 
wrote it, then directly after the account of the 
creation of man and the consecration of the sev- 
enth day this genealogy would follow. His first 
chapter ends, '' This is the genealogy of the 
heaven and of the earth when they are created," 
and his second chapter (Chapter v.) begins, 
'' This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." 
The consequences of all this it is very important 

Cain), the recurrence of the same names would be unaccountable. 
As it is we must sincerely regard these two genealogies as slightly 
diverging traditions of the antediluvian world. 

(286) 



Degeneration of Patriarchs 

to bear in mind. The Priestly Writer has not 
said a word about the Garden of Eden, about 
Eve or the serpent or the first sin. He knows 
nothing of Cain and Abel or of Cain's murder. 
He does not regard Cain as Adam's son at all, 
but as his great-grandchild. Therefore, in 
reading his second chapter, we must remember 
that he does not take all these things into ac- 
count. He wishes merely to continue his nar- 
rative, which he has carried only as far as the 
creation of man and woman, and he now goes on 
to describe that man's descendants. Bearing 
these facts in mind, we get quite a new impres- 
sion of this chapter. These genealogies with 
the Priestly Writer lead directly to his story of 
the great Flood. They are his bridge, and his 
only bridge, between his account of man's crea- 
tion in the image of God and man's destruction 
in the Flood, in consequence of his sin. It would 
therefore be very natural if we should receive in 
the genealogy itself some hint of the growing 
wickedness of men which provoked God at last 
to destroy almost the whole human race. The 
ostensible purpose of his table, of course, is to 
show what men lived before the Flood and how 
long the world itself existed. He accomplishes 
the latter by carefully noting how old each patri- 
arch was at the birth of his first son, and how 
long each lived afterward; and from these data 
we can not only compute which of the patriarchs 
were alive at a particular time, but in what year 
of the world each was born and died, and in what 
year the Flood came. Unfortunately, this al- 
ready complicated question is further compli- 
cated. We possess no fewer than three different 

(387) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

versions of this chapter; namely, the Hebrew 
text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch,* each of which computes the hves of the 
patriarchs differently, and so each comes to a 
different result in regard to the date of the Flood. 
This difference, moreover, is quite serious, for 
while the Samaritan Pentateuch places the date 
of the Flood in the year of the world 1307, the 
Hebrew text sets it in the year 1656, and the 
Septuagint as late as 2242. I will simply say 
that the Septuagint text is most evidently cor- 
rupt, and that between the Hebrew text and the 
Samaritan probably the majority of recent schol- 
ars decide in favor of the Samaritan, f 

Accepting the statement of the Samaritan 
Pentateuch that the Flood took place in the year 
1307, which is derived from its calculation of the 
ages of the patriarchs, Budde makes a very inte- 
resting discovery. Jared, Methuselah and La- 
mech all died in the Flood year, in the year 1307, 
as may be seen by glancing at the table. This 
is certainly significant. As Budde says (whom 
I follow here), if in tracing the history of any old 
German family we learned that all branches 
save one disappeared in the year 1349 a. d., we 
should not hesitate to infer that the whole family 
except one branch had been swept away by the 
Black Death, which ravaged Europe in that year. 

* After Ezra, 444 B.C. 

f E.g., Berthau, Dillmann, Budde, and Addis. The chief 
reasons adduced are as follows : r. Greater regularity in Samaritan 
Pentateuch in ages at birth of first son and of entire life. 2. A 
gradual diminution of age, except in cases of Noah and Enoch. 
3. The Samr.ritan Pentateuch, which was translated from the 
Hebrew, would have been more apt to add to the years, after the 
manner of the Septuagint, than to diminish them. See Budde, 
" Urgeschichte," p. 91. Addis, ii. 199. 

(288) 



Table of Patriarchs 






Q 

^ is s i §• 

li, <: u c o 



O M O "^ O M l^vO w vo vO 
O O M N c^ Tf Ovo O O vo 



a^ o w csi N f<^oo fTi co^ <o 



Q 



CO H o M Ovo o o r^ lo 
o^ cj^ a^ oco o^ CO o t^ o^ 



<U <l> 

S o 



Ot^vnOOOOMxnO • 
OOMTtcnOOcoOiri • 
oooooooocococor^iT)'^ • 






0"^00u-)(Nmt^(N00 

c<-) O O r~^0 vO o CO oo o O 

MM M M M ID M 



Q 






ri 1/3 

< .i: ^ 2 o 



O M vnO u^r^voO coO 

CO M O l-l O^ '^O M IT) in 

O^ O^ O^ c>oo CO CO r^O O 



Oi^iJ^OO>J^OcooO 

OOMr^COCOOu^O"^ 

CO CO 00 CO CO r^ coo O ■^ 



J3 3 



w c4 coTj-iovd r^od c>6 



o 



& 



1^ S.S S-df^ti 
•a -^ c rt c ^S^ 







(289) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

So, when we discover in the genealogy that 
Jared, Methuselah and Lamech all disappeared 
in the Flood year, and further, as the Flood oc- 
curred on the seventeenth day of the second 
month, that they all must have died within the 
first three months of that year, the conclusion 
is almost forced upon us that they did not die a 
natural death, but were swept away in the Flood. 
But if that were the case, it was undoubtedly be-, 
cause they were sinners. So, a new and most 
interesting purpose of this dry chapter begins to 
be revealed. The author, as I have said, knew 
nothing of the Garden of Eden and of the sin of 
Adam and Cain. He does not regard Cain as 
Adam's son, but he must still give some hint of 
the cause of the Flood, and the hint this genealogy 
contains is that men were first good, but began 
to degenerate until the Flood swept them away. 
This impression is strengthened when we look 
at his table a little more carefully. Jared, Me- 
thuselah and Lamech — the sixth, eighth and 
ninth patriarchs — apparently were destroyed in 
the Flood. Why was not Enoch also destroyed ? 
He came between Jared and Methuselah, and 
was born in the year of the world 522. If he had 
attained the span of life allotted to his contem- 
poraries, or if he had even lived eight hundred 
years, he would have been overtaken by the 
same fate. Even an early death would not have 
saved him from the imputation of unrighteous- 
ness, for an early death was regarded as a sign 
of God's displeasure. Accordingly, Enoch did 
not die at all. In the author's beautiful expres- 
sion, " He was not, for God took him." And 
why did God take him away from the coming 

(290) 



Enoch's Translation 



evil? Because he walked with God, he was a 
righteous man. But his father, son, and grand- 
son God did not take. He let them drown, and 
the suspicion certainly attaches itself that God let 
them drown because they were wicked. There 
is no doubt that Enoch occupied a distinguished 
place among the patriarchs. He was the Sev- 
enth — always an honorable number. The Apos- 
tle Jude calls especial attention to this fact when 
he says, " And Enoch, also, the Seventh from 
Adam, prophesied." Delitzsch has observed 
that at the time of Enoch's translation most 
of the patriarchs were living, but if we follow 
the computation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
the argument becomes much stronger, for they 
were all alive. According to the Samaritan, 
Enoch was translated in the year 887. Even 
Adam survived him by forty-three years, and at 
the time of Enoch's translation Noah was one 
hundred and eighty years old. Enoch's mar- 
vellous translation occurred before the eyes of 
all, as a consolation to the good and as a warning 
and threat to the evil. All this points to the fact 
that the earher patriarchs, who lived a long Hfe 
and departed in peace, were good, but that the 
later patriarchs who, with the exceptions of 
Enoch and Noah, were drowned in the Flood, 
were evil. This impression is strengthened by 
the names of the later patriarchs as they are usu- 
ally interpreted. Jared, the father of Enoch, 
means '' descent," here, '' falling off," '' deterio- 
ration." Methuselah is interpreted '' man of a 
dart," i. e., of violence. Lamech, whose name 
is variously explained, according to the oldest 
traditions was a man of bloodshed and murder. 



(291) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

All this throws a brilliant light on the genealogy 
of the Priestly Writer. I repeat, this writer had 
nothing to say of the original fall of man, or of 
the murder of Abel. He was therefore obHged 
to account for the coming of the Flood in a dif- 
ferent way, and he does account for it differently. 
By the very arrangement of his genealogical 
table he indicates the growing wickedness of the 
antediluvians with the exception of Enoch and 
Noah, of whom Enoch was taken away from the 
coming evil, and Noah was preserved alive in it. 
It is also plain that this author was ignorant of 
or rejected the genealogy of Cain related by the 
Jehovist, or he would not have ascribed almost 
the same posterity to Seth. There is, therefore, 
no contrast between the wicked Cainites and the 
pious Sethites, as so many writers have imagined. 
All this is interesting and important as far as it 
goes, and yet the veil of mystery that hangs 
over those ancient names — Enoch, Mahalaleel, 
Jared and Methuselah — is not lifted. Whether 
they were men at all, and, if so, who they were 
and what they did, probably we shall never 
know. As I said, all comparisons with the 
heroes and demigods of other nations, thus far, 
have failed to establish any certain connections. 
Enoch, from the strange manner of his transla- 
tion, and from his 365 years, has been supposed 
to be a solar deity ; but what weakens this com- 
parison is the fact that the Hebrew year, which 
was reckoned by the moon, contained only 354 
days, while the Babylonian year consisted of 360 
days. These matters are discussed with a wealth 
of example by Lenormant.* 

*'* Beginnings of History," chapters v. and vi. 
(292) 



The First Genealogy 



I turn now to the genealogy of Cain, which 
I have called the first table. It occurs in the 
document of the Jehovist (Gen. iv. 17-24), 
though whether it comes from his pen or is the 
work of the Elohist I leave undetermined. We 
shall see immediately that this is a very different 
composition from the dry list of the Priestly 
Writer, from which everything has been care- 
fully expurgated but the names and ages of the 
patriarchs. Properly speaking, these verses are 
not so much a genealogy as a little family history 
of the descendants of Cain, containing interest- 
ing notices of their progress in civilization and 
in the invention of the arts. There is no reason 
to suppose that this curious piece of literature, 
which is very ancient, was composed outright 
by the Jehovist or the Elohist. To assume this 
would be to deny its value as a very early tradi- 
tion. On the contrary, the Jehovist, or the 
Elohist, found this old document, which had 
been in existence for a long time, and incor- 
porated it into his work, probably altering it a 
good deal, and omitting those crudely mytho- 
logical allusions which offended his religious 
sense. The most important question is, with 
what intention was this genealogy of Cain orig- 
inally composed? Did the author regard Cain 
as a bad man and a murderer? And was it 
originally written with reference to the Flood ? I 
am inclined to answer both these questions in the 
negative. If, as we believe, this Httle document 
is very old, Cain's murder would not be regarded 
in the light in which we regard it. We see in the 
document itself how such acts of violence are 
treated in Lamech's song. Lamech boasts of 



(293) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

having killed two men, and he praises rather 
than blames Cain for having avenged himself in 
the same manner. Moreover, there is a marked 
contradiction between the Cain of this genealogy 
and the Cain who just before slew Abel. So 
marked, in fact, that we are entitled to regard 
them as two different men.* For that act Cain 
was condemned by God to a miserable life of 
wandering. Here, on the contrary, the first 
thing Cain does is to build a city, and the noma- 
dic life is regarded as far from miserable. There 
is no attempt in the genealogy to show a develop- 
ment of sin among men in a way that would 
account for the Flood. It would be very natural, 
in case this genealogy were merely the continu- 
ation of the story of the Fall and the murder of 
Abel, for the author to show a growth of sin in 
Cain's children. On the contrary, Cain's son is 
the pious Enoch, whose piety, it is true, is not 
mentioned. Lamech is certainly a wild and ter- 
rible figure, but the peculiar thing is that his 
wickedness is not censured. His crime is due 
to his savage and ferocious nature, which is ac- 
cepted as a matter of course. He is not repre- 
sented as a man with a conscience like the Cain 
with whom God pleads, but as a man who does 
wrong with a light heart, and who boasts of his 
crimes. In short, he is faithfully depicted as the 
representative of an earlier age of humanity to 
whom moral standards do not apply. Everything 
about him is genuinely antique. He is one of 
the oldest figures in the world. One other thing 
which plainly proves that this genealogy was not 

* The fact that the Priestly Writer regards Cain as the great- 
grandson of Adam shows how tradition wavered in regard to him. 

(294) 



Cain the City Builder 



originally composed with reference to the Flood, 
is the fact that Noah is not mentioned in it. La- 
mech has three sons, which rounds out the 
scheme of the table, but Noah is not one of them. 
My opinion, therefore, is that this old genealogy 
of Cain was not originally connected with our 
story of Cain and Abel, and that it does not look 
forward to the Flood. The descendants of Jabal, 
Jubal and Tubal are spoken of as alive at the 
time when the genealogy was composed. Dill- 
mann is disposed to regard this document as the 
first appearance of the third writer of Genesis, 
whom we call the Elohist, and he may very well 
be right.* 

Chapter iv., 17. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, 
and gave birth to Enoch: and he was a city builder, and he 
named the city after the name of his son Enoch. 

There are several things in this verse that 
surprise us. For example, when it says, '' she 
gave birth to Enoch and he was a city builder," 
we should naturally suppose that it was Enoch 
who built the city. Not until the end of the 
verse do we find that the city builder was 
Cain himself. Leaving out of sight, as we ought 
to do, the contradiction between the wandering 
Cain cursed by God and Cain the city builder, 
since they are two distinct narratives, is it a con- 
tradiction that Cain, who is always represented 
as a farmer, should have built the first city ? This 
very ancient tradition represents the first city as 

* The second table seems to me to have better claims to be re- 
garded as the Jehovist's work. If so the same document would 
hardly contain two genealogies. The numerous inconsistencies 
between the first table and the Jehovist's narrative also point to 
another authorship. 

(295)" 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the work of the farmer. Is that erroneous or is 
it founded on a recollection of fact? Ihering 
discusses this problem with his usual talent.* 
He calls attention to the fact that the simplest 
way of accounting for town life would have been 
to raise up a third figure — say Seth — beside Cain 
the farmer and Abel the shepherd, who should 
represent town life. But, on the contrary, the 
old tradition assigns the building of the first city 
to the farmer. This is certainly curious. The 
farmer, by his very occupation, is compelled to 
live in the country, not in town. The town is 
the place for the merchant and the tradesman, 
to which the farmer, only occasionally resorts to 
dispose of his produce and to buy goods. That 
is perfectly true of towns to-day, but it was not 
the original purpose of the town. " The first 
towns everywhere were fortresses, not market 
places." All the old towns were fortified and 
the essential parts were the walls, not the houses. 
The first towns were not so much dwelling places 
as places of refuge to which the people might re- 
tire when beset by their enemies. What makes 
this interesting to us is the fact that in this way 
many of our older American cities arose. Origi- 
nally they were forts, or block houses, built 
largely for the purpose of safety, to which the 
farmer, the trader, and the backwoodsman might 
fly when menaced by savages. That this is gen- 
erally true all over the world is shown by the 
name given the city by the different nations. 
With the Greeks, the Acropolis, the sharp- 
pointed, fortified place, came before the polis. 

* ** Evolution of the Aryan," chapter ii. Swan, Sonnenschein, 
1897. 

(296) 



The Farmer and the City 



The Latin urbs, a walled town, is from orbis, a 
circle; i.e., the fortification. The German burg 
means the surrounded, fortified place; stadt, the 
comfortable place, help.* The original meaning 
of town is fence or enclosure; city is a resting 
place.f A very interesting rite, which preserved 
the connection between the farmer and the city, 
and also the original purpose of the city, is found 
among the Romans.if In tracing the outHne of 
a new city, a bull and a cow were harnessed to a 
plough, the bull on the outside toward the enemy, 
the peaceable cow on the inside toward the walls. 
The old tradition, then, which makes Cain the 
farmer the first city builder, seems founded on 
fact, and if we remember that the original pur- 
pose of the city was a place of refuge, not a per- 
manent dwelling place, even the contradiction 
that the wandering Cain, who feared so much to 
be killed, should have provided himself with such 
an asylum, is weakened. As to what cities have 
done for man, I will only remind you that the 
glorious word " civilization " means the condi- 
tion of life in cities. 

i8. And to Enoch, Irad was born: and Irad begat Mehu- 
jael, and Mehujael begat Methusael, and Methusael begat 
Lamech. 

Enoch was supposed to mean " dedication " 
or ^' consecration." Its application here is not 
apparent. It might be conjectured that he was 
named at the consecration of the city, or Enoch 
may not be a Hebrew word at all. Mehujael may 

* Kluge, " Etymol. Worterbuch." 

f Skeat's *' Etymol. Diet." 

X Borrowed from Etruscans : Ihering. 



(297) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

be interpreted " the smitten of God," or '' God 
gives me life." * Methusael is " suppliant," or 
" man of God," but hardly '' man of hell," as 
Redslob thinks, which is too ill-omened. 

19. And Lamech took to himself two wives, the name of 
the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah. 

20. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as 
dwell in tents and have cattle. 

This is another proof that this genealogy knew 
nothing of Abel the herdsman. 

21. And the name of his brother was Jubal: he was the 
father of all that handle the harp and the pipe. 

22. And Zillah also bare Tubal-Cain, the father of all 
who work in copper and iron; and the sister of Tubal-Cain 
was Naamah. 

23. And Lamech said to his wives: 

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; 
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech, 
For I have killed a man for wounding me 
And a child for bruising me. 
If Cain be avenged sevenfold, 
Lamech, seventy-seven fold." 

I have already said so much about Lamech 
that it is necessary to add but little more. It is 
hard not to imagine that this strange figure, with 
his two wives Adah and Zillah, " beauty and 
shadow," was originally an elemental myth, con- 
nected with day and night. If he were, that 
myth can no longer be identified with certainty. 
In our Book, he is represented merely as a man. 
It is customary to regard Lamech's wild song 
as an outburst of triumph over his discovery of 
the art of forging metals into weapons. This is 
not stated in the song itself; his son Tubal-Cain 

* Dillmann. 

(298) 



Metal Working 



was the first smith. And yet it is very natural 
to ascribe the bold confidence of Lamech to the 
superiority of his weapon, which enables him to 
look his enemies in the eye without fear. The 
picture is very complete. In Lamech's family 
we see the ideal of a pastoral life realized. Jabal 
is the father of all wandering shepherds, while 
Jubal and Tubal satisfied the simple needs of the 
shepherd's life by inventing music and metal 
working. 

In regard to the discovery of metal working, 
Ihering believes that both the Aryans and the 
Babylonians were ignorant of the use of metals 
in primitive times. As late as the building of 
Solomon's temple, the Jews were so unskilful in 
these arts that Solomon was obliged to entrust 
the execution of the bronze temple vessels and 
ornaments to Tyrian artists. At the time of 
Samuel, iron was so little used by the Hebrews 
that there was no smith in the land of Israel who 
could so much as sharpen an axe or a plough- 
share, and the Hebrews depended on the Philis- 
tines for weapons and implements.* On the 
other hand, iron chariots were in use among the 
Canaanites as early as 1250 b. c. t 

Among all the genealogies of the nations, the 
one which most resembles ours is the Phoenician, 
recorded by Sanchuniathon. Sanchuniathon 
gives an elaborate description of the descent 
of the first human beings, the discovery of fire 
by the rubbing of two sticks together and also 
by the friction of branches of trees lashed by 
the storm. The first human beings, whose names 
indicate abstract qualities, were of vast size. 

*i Sam. xiii. ig. f Judg-. i. 19; iv. 13. 



(299) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Later Hypsuranius invents houses and discovers 
papyrus. Usous, his brother, with whom he 
quarrels, makes a raft out of a tree and ventures 
on the sea; Agreus and Halicus invent hunting 
and fishing; the Technites, or craftsmen, discover 
the art of brickmaking. Others find sah and 
medicinal herbs. This list, however, which ap- 
pears to be wholly mythical and capricious, 
passes from gods to men and from men back to 
gods without any definite plan or purpose.* Yet 
its ascription of the first human inventions to 
divine or semi-divine beings is very interesting, 
and it is probable that the heroes of this portion 
of Genesis were originally beings of the same 
order. 

It remains to add a few words on the second 
genealogy, which consists now of only three 
verses, the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth of chap- 
ter four, and the twenty-ninth verse of chapter 
five. It is a great pity that so much of this 
genealogy has been omitted, as it would be of 
great interest to us to see if it also contained 
the same names. From the fact that it begins 
with Adam and Seth and ends with Noah, one 
would imagine that it was originally identical 
with the table of the Priestly Writer, and con- 
sisted of ten members. As this genealogy plainly 
alludes to Abel's murder and to the cursing of the 
ground, it seems to me simplest, in spite of small 
difificulties, to regard it as the work of the Jehov- 
ist. The Jehovist must have had some gene- 
alogy containing the name of Noah and leading 
up to his own account of the Flood; this is the 
remains of that genealogy. It is plain the editor 

* Cory's " Fragments " : Sanchuniathon. 
(300) 



The Second Genealogy 



of Genesis eliminated the whole body of this 
table, leaving only the beginning and the end, 
because the table of the Priestly Writer, with his 
careful computations of time, immediately fol- 
lows; and it is also plain why the editor left as 
much as he did. The Priestly Writer of the fifth 
chapter mentions Seth as the first son of Adam, 
but in the genealogy of Cain Seth's name is not 
mentioned. Cain is always assumed to be Adam's 
first child. At this gross contradiction every one 
would stumble. It was therefore necessary to 
show that the Jehovist admitted that Adam had 
a son Seth, though he was not his first son. The 
genealogy of Cain, moreover, does not as much 
as mention Noah. It was therefore important 
that the Jehovist's statement in regard to Noah 
should be preserved in order to lead to his ac- 
count of the Flood. As to the relation of this 
second genealogy to the first (the genealogy of 
Cain), the data are too slight to enable us to form 
an opinion. The words -of the second genealogy 
are as follows : 



Chapter iv. 25. And Adam knew his wife again, and she 
bare a son, and called his name Seth [substitution] ; for 
[said she] " Elohim has given me other seed, instead of 
Abel, since Cain has slain him." 



It surprises us that the woman, who elsewhere 
speaks only of Jahveh, here calls God Elohim. 
This may have been substituted by the editor to 
avoid a contradiction with the next verse, where 
It is said that not until Enos did men call on the 
name of Jahveh."*" 

* Dillmann. 



(301) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

26. And to Seth in turn a son was born, and he called his 
name Enos; then they began to call upon [God by] the 
name of Jahveh. 

The authorship and the purpose of this verse, 
which contradicts the statement that Cain and 
Abel worshipped Jahveh, are very obscure ; it was 
probably added by a later hand. Here the table 
is interrupted and concludes with these words: 

Chap. V, 29. And he called his name Noah [comfort], 
saying, " The same shall comfort us for our work, and the 
sore labor of our hands which comes from the ground 
which Jahveh has cursed." 

In all probability these are the words of La- 
mech, who, in the Priestly Writer's genealogy, 
is represented as the father of Noah. We may 
be sure, however, that Lamech here is not the 
bloodstained man the Cainite table describes. 
He is evidently an agriculturist, fulfilling his des- 
tiny by hard toil. The perfect consistency of 
this verse, fragmentary as it is, with the condi- 
tions imposed by God after Adam's sin, seems to 
me a strong argument for believing this gene- 
alogy to be the work of the Jehovist who drew 
the picture of the Fall. The possibility of its 
having contained other of his characteristic views 
makes us regret the more that so little of it has 
been preserved.* 

* Dillmann, I think less correctly, regards this verse as the in- 
terpolation of the Redactor. But why should the Redactor intro- 
duce Jahveh in the middle of a document of the Priestly Writer 
and connect the verse so closely with the story of the Jehovist ? 



(302) 



Crux Interpretum of Genesis 



Chapter Fifteen: 

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men and 
the End of the Old World 

After the dry genealogies of the fourth and 
jLjL fifth chapters, the brilHant little narrative 
with which the sixth chapter begins is very wel- 
come. The story of the marriages of the sons 
of God with the daughters of men is unlike any- 
thing else in the Old Testament. It seems to 
belong to some old cycle of folk-lore outside the 
revealed religion of Israel. Probably there is 
no passage in the Bible that has provoked more 
discussion, as, apart from the strangeness of the 
ideas it suggests, it is full of Hnguistic difificulties, 
one or two of which at the present time are 
simply insoluble. Not without reason is it called 
the crux interpretum of the first part of Genesis. 
I think the best way to bring this passage before 
you will be to translate it, as far as it can be trans- 
lated, and then to call your attention to the prob- 
lems it contains. 



Chapter vi. i, 2. It came to pass as men began to multi- 
ply on the earth, and daughters were born to them, that 
the sons of Elohim saw that the daughters of men were 
beautiful, and they took of them to wife all who pleased 
them. 

3. And Jahveh said: "My spirit shall not always [i.e., 

(303) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



forever] prevail * in man because he also is flesh [or, by 
reason of their error, he is flesh]. f So then let his days be 
one hundred and twenty years." 

4. The [well known] giants [Nephilim] were on the 
earth in those days, and also afterward, for the sons of 
Elohim went in to the daughters of men and these bore 
children to them; they are the heroes who were celebrated 
in gray antiquity. 

Before we attempt to give any account of the 
origin of this wond'erful story it will be necessary 
to come to an miderstanding as to what it means. 
Who are these '' sons of God " so strangely de- 
scribed as mingling with humanity? Are they 
spiritual beings of the order of angels, or are 
they men ? As early as the Targumim of Unka- 
los, and Simeon, son of Jochai, or as the Greek 
version of Symmachus, the sons of God were re- 
garded as princes or nobles, " iilii potentium," 
who made mesalliances with the daughters of the 
common people. Others pretended that the 
" sons of God " were merely just men who lived 

* Yadhon. This is one of the words that cannot be satis- 
factorily rendered. The A. V. translates " strive," but the verb 
appears to be intransitive (Dillmann). Opinion fluctuates be- 
tween " be humbled," after the Arabic " dana," and "rule," 
"govern." Neither can be proved. Addis gives "rule," 
Dillmann is reserved, Kautzsch refuses to translate, Holzinger, 
"rule," "prevail," Delitzsch, "rule" {walten), Siegfried and 
Stade, "humble itself," Gesenius, in Thesaurus, " non humilia- 
bitur spiritus mens," in Worterbuch, loth ed., "rule," "pre- 
vail." Yadhon is derived from the intransitive verb dun, or don, 
which does not occur elsewhere. 

f This word {b' shaggaiii) is also hopeless ; " because," or " be- 
cause also " involves a late Hebraism which does not occur else- 
where in the Hexateuch (Budde, " Urgeschichte," p. 14). 
" By their transgression," or " by their error," makes no sense. 
Not only is the change of number {enallage numeri) " intoler- 
able," but what sense would there be in saying that man, who is 
already flesh, by his union with spiritual beings has become flesh ? 
With more propriety this remark might be addressed to the sons 
of God, but it does not appear to be addressed to them, it is 
addressed to man. 

(304) 



The Sons of God 



angelic lives. Probably the most common 
opinion since the fourth century of our era 
has been that the '' sons of God " were the de- 
scendants of the pious Seth, while by the 
'' daughters of men " we must understand '' the 
worldly women " of the Hne of Cain. This, how- 
ever, is very improbable. There is no reason to 
suppose that the writers of Genesis regarded the 
descendants of Seth as peculiarly pious. On the 
contrary, in the genealogies we saw that the later 
members of that family, except Noah, were de- 
stroyed in the Flood. Neither is any hint given 
that marriages between these two families were 
forbidden. It is very plain that in the expres- 
sion " sons of God " and " daughters of men " 
the contrast is not between men of one family 
and women of another, but between women 
described in the broadest sense as the feminine 
portion of the human family and males who are 
not of the human family, but are an entirely dif- 
ferent order of being, here simply called the 
'' sons of Elohim." This is further shown by the 
fact that the offspring of these unions were 
giants, which in itself cuts the ground from under 
all these explanations. It is also the sense in 
which the story was first understood in the Jew- 
ish Church. The first definite attempt to inter- 
pret our narrative, so far as I am aware, is in the 
apocryphal book of Enoch,''' and the passage is so 
important, both as showing how this chapter was 
understood at the time, and as exhibiting the 
fruits it has borne, that I shall give a few verses 
of it. The passage begins, like our chapter, with 
the discovery on the part of the angels of the 



(305) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

beauty of the daughters of men. The angels, 
filled with admiration for mortal maidens, re- 
solve to marry them. Sernjuza, their chief, hesi- 
tates. He says: " I am afraid that you do not 
intend to carry out this act, and that I alone 
will have to pay the penalty of this great sin." 
Two hundred others, however, bind themselves 
with an oath to do it. Accordingly, the whole 
brood sweeps down to the peak of Mount Her- 
mon. They go up and down on the earth and 
make choice of those young women who please 
them best. The angels teach them all kinds of 
magic arts and incantations. Their children are 
described as giants three thousand ells high, and 
these giants eat up all man's provisions so that 
there is nothing left for men, and after they have 
eaten all man's food, they begin to devour men 
and animals and fish, and to drink their blood, 
until the whole earth groans over the injustice. 

This attracts the attention of the good angels. 
" Michael, Gabriel, Surjan and Urjan looked 
down from heaven and saw all the blood that was 
shed on the earth, and all the injustice that was 
perpetrated there. And they said one to an- 
other, ' The earth lets the voice of its cry echo 
to the gate of heaven; and to you, ye holy ones 
of heaven, do the souls of men cry, saying, *' Do 
us justice before the Most High." ' " Accord- 
ingly they inform God of all that is going on upon 
the earth, and the Lord sends the archangel 
Uriel * to warn Noah that He is about to destroy 
the whole earth with a deluge. Next the Lord 
commands Raphael to bind Azazel, t one of the 

* Here called Arsjalaljur. 

f Azazel figures in the ceremony of the scape-goat ; where the 

(306) 



The Fall of the Angels 



chiefs of the sinning angels, hand and foot. ''Lay 
him in darkness. Make a hole in the wilderness 
of Dudael and lay him in it. Put rough and sharp 
stones on him, and cover him with darkness, that 
he may remain there forever, and cover his face 
that he may not see the light, and in the great 
day of judgment he shall be thrown into the lake 
of fire." * 

It is very plain that St. Jude had this story be- 
fore him and followed it almost word for word 
when he wrote, '' And the angels which kept not 
their first estate, but left their own habitation, he 
hath reserved in everlasting chains under dark- 
ness, until the judgment of the last day." f It is 
also interesting to observe that St. Jude refers in 
the very next verse to the only other allusion in 
the Bible to an unnatural union between angels 
and men. When he speaks of Sodom and Go- 
morrah " going after strange flesh " he evidently 
has in mind the terrible story of Genesis xix. 

In the second epistle ascribed to St. Peter, it 
is also evident that the author has the same event 
in mind when he says, " If God spared not the 
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell 
and delivered them into chains of darkness to be 
reserved unto judgment." % The doctrine of the 
Fall of the Angels, therefore, appears to rest on 
the strange story of Genesis. 

Without going any further we can see that 
this story of the union of the " sons of God " and 

Authorized Version reads ' ' Let him go for a scape-goat into the 
wilderness" (Lev. xvi. lo) the Hebrew has "Let him go for a 
scape-goat to Azazel." 

* Book of Enoch, pp. 6-il, 

f Epistle of St. Jude, 6. 

X 2 Peter, ii. 4. 



(307) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the " daughters of men " was a popular tale in 
the century before Christ and in the century after 
Christ. It is found in the Book of Jubilees,* in 
Philo JudaeuSjt and in Josephus^ AH these 
authors, as well as many of the church Fathers 
of the first three centuries, understood by the 
''sons of God" angels, and nothing else. It is 
even possible that the Book of Enoch may con- 
tain some old Hebrew traditions which were al- 
lowed to fall from Genesis. " Sons of God " is a 
name often applied to angels in the Old Testa- 
ment, especially in Job and the Psalms. § 

I therefore regard this point as proved. Al- 
though the author of this curious Httle passage, 
which in its main features is very ancient, may 
not have been familiar with the developed doc- 
trine of angels as we find it in the later portions 
of the Old Testament, yet by the " sons of God " 
he did not mean mortal men of any family, 
race or condition, but an order of spiritual beings 
like those to whom God alluded when He said 
" Let us make man in our image," or " The man 
has become hke one of us," or " Let us go down." 
So it was understood by the earliest Jewish ex- 
positors, and by the Christian Fathers before 
they decided, from reasons which have nothing 
to do with exegesis, to change their opinion. 

Granting that the sons of God are angelic 
beings, or still better, spiritual beings, superior 
to man, we see at once that we are dealing with 
a very peculiar story, which resembles the myths 

* Dillmann, in Ewald's '* Jahrbiicher," ii. 248. 
I" De Gigantibus," ii. 358, ed. Mangey. 
i Antiq. i. 3, I. 

§ Job, i. 6 ; ii. I ; xxxviii. 7. Psalm xxix. i ; Ixxxix. 6 : Sons 
of mighty, Elim. 

(308) 



Supernatural Origin of Heroes 

of the Gentiles much more than the reHgion of 
the Old Testament, with its clean-cut distinc- 
tion between God and man. In short, the giants 
are conceived as a sort of intermediate race be- 
tween gods and men, and it was for the sake of 
destroying this proud and unnatural brood that 
the Flood was sent. Among the Greeks and 
Romans the habit of tracing the descent of noble 
families from gods and goddesses was very com- 
mon. Plato goes so far as to say that all heroes 
are demigods, born of the love of a god for a 
mortal woman or of a goddess for a mortal man. 
Such an idea could have arisen among the He- 
brews only at an early age, and we may be sure 
that this story is very old. It appears in the 
document of the Jehovist, but he certainly did 
not originate it. On the contrary, it is a tale 
opposed to his whole mode of thought, as we 
can infer from the way he hurries over it, strip- 
ping it doubtless of many of its mythological 
features. From the description of the giants 
and heroes of old as celebrated men — men of re- 
nown — it is plain that they were popular charac- 
ters, of whom the people had many stories to tell. 
We may compare them with the heroes of 
Homer or with the Titans, who also had a super- 
natural origin. At the beginning of the Phoeni- 
cian genealogies, mention is made of " giants of 
vast bulk and height, whose names were con- 
ferred on the mountains on which they dwelt." * 
It was in some such way that this story arose — 
either from the habit of tracing the descent of 
heroes from the gods, or to account for the origin 
of an old and vanished race of giants. The 

* Sanchuniathon, in Cory's ••Fragments," p. 6. 
(309) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Jehovist found this ancient tale and made use of 
it to prepare the way for his story of the Flood. 
He evidently regards these unnatural unions be- 
tween angels and men, and the proud and mighty 
race of giants resulting from them, as one of the 
provocations which induced Jahveh to destroy 
the earth. That this story is very loosely con- 
nected with the Book of Genesis is shown by the 
introduction, and also by the fact that the deeds 
described are not associated with any of the per- 
sons whom we already know. '' It came to pass 
when men began to multiply on the earth." 
When was that? We can only say, apparently 
some time before the Flood. But both the Jeho- 
vist and the Priestly Writer have already carried 
their genealogies down to the Flood. It would 
also appear that the story originally did not men- 
tion Jahveh, and was not composed with refer- 
ence to Him; as, indeed, how could it be? All 
the rest of the narrative runs smoothly and hangs 
well together, but the verse in which Jahveh 
speaks is full of all kinds of difficulties. Another 
thing is evident. A large part of our belief in 
the Fall of the angels rests on this narrative. We 
saw how the idea was seized on by Enoch, from 
whom it passed to St. Jude; but the story origin- 
ally did not contain this thought. Such myth- 
ical marriages were considered quite natural at 
the time this myth was composed. Even as the 
narrative stands in the document of the Jehovist 
in Genesis, no blame is attached to the angels. 
Not a word of censure is addressed to them. Jah- 
veh addresses His warning solely to man. The 
purpose of the limitation Jahveh imposes on 
human life, fixing its duration at one hundred 

(310) 



Limitation of Human Life 



and twenty years, also seems plain. Man is al- 
ready sinful and corrupt, but if in addition to his 
sinfulness he gains an enormous accession of 
strength and power from the angels, it is plain 
that he will become too insolent to be endured. 
Accordingly, with profound insight, the years of 
his life are cut short. It does not yet appear that 
God has determined upon the destruction of the 
race in the Flood. The one hundred and twenty 
years spoken of are not one hundred and twenty 
years that the earth shall still endure before the 
Flood; the meaning is that human life in general 
is to be shortened to this term. This does not 
agree very well with the fact that Jared and Me- 
thuselah, who lived to the Flood, according to 
the Samaritan Pentateuch, were more than seven 
hundred years old at their deaths, and that even 
Lamech attained more than six hundred and fifty 
years. But we must remember that these are the 
figures of the Priestly Writer, not of the Jehovist, 
who has not yet expressed himself as to the age 
of the patriarchs. 

I wish now to glance at this narrative a little 
more sharply before taking leave of it. The 
first two verses are perfectly simple. Strange 
as such marriages seem to us, and opposed as 
they are to New Testament ideas, they seemed 
natural to those who first recounted them. We 
must remember, though we call these " sons of 
Elohim " angels, because we have no other name 
for them, that they are very different from those 
holy beings who, Jesus afifirmed, " neither marry 
nor are given in marriage." These were doubt- 
less mere nature-deities whose marriages were 
recounted in good faith. The real difificulty of 



(311) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the passage begins with the speech of Jahveh in 
the third verse, and it is aggravated, as we have 
seen, by two untranslatable words. 

'' And Jahveh said, ' My spirit shall not always 
[forever] prevail [or be humbled] in man/ " 
This much, in spite of the uncertainty of the word, 
is intelligible, but how shall we explain what fol- 
lows? Let' us try both alternatives. ''Because 
he also," or " he too on his part is flesh, so then 
let his days be one hundred and twenty years." 
The spirit spoken of here is not the Holy Spirit, 
but the vital spirit or breath God breathed into 
man when He created him. This is a very com- 
mon idea in the Old Testament. The breath of 
life belongs to God, it is not a product of the 
physical organism. When God breathes His 
breath into an animal or a man, that being which 
before was mere inert flesh becomes living. 
When God draws His breath back again it dies. 
So Job says, *' The breath of the Almighty hath 
given me life," * and in the One Hundred and 
Fourth Psalm we read, '' Thou takest away their 
breath, they die." t This expression, therefore, 
would simply mean ^' My breath will not sustain 
man forever, because he also is flesh ; so let him 
live one hundred and twenty years." This, on the 
whole, is very weakly and obscurely expressed. 
The " because he also " robs it of any real signifi- 
cance. Delitzsch's " because he too on his part," 
with its fanciful explanation, is not any better. 

The other alternative, '' in consequence of 
their error [i.e., the angels'] he is flesh," be- 
sides containing a grammatical enormity, means 

* Job, xxxiii. 4. f Psalm civ. 29. 

(312) 



Linguistic Difficulties 



nothing at all, as man always was flesh, and it is 
hard to see how he becomes more fleshly by 
union with spiritual beings. 

If we could translate '' in spite of their error " 
— i.e., in spite of the infusion of angelic substance 
and strength, man is and remains flesh — it would 
at least convey a meaning, tut it would be very 
forced. The expression " My spirit shall not 
prevail forever in man " also strikes us as curious, 
and makes us* suspect that in the writer's opinion 
some change has taken place in man's constitu- 
tion. A life of even nine hundred years is a very 
different thing from living forever. The same 
word is employed as when Jahveh says, " The 
man has become as one of us, knowing good and 
evil, and now lest he put forth his hand and take 
also of the Tree of Life and eat and live forever." 
Wellhausen,* as usual^ has a bright, original in- 
terpretation, which, if I understand him rightly, 
would be, " My spirit [i.e., the spiritual substance 
of which angels consist as well as God] shall not 
always prevail in man, because he also is flesh." 
In that case, however, the infusion of divine sub- 
stance ought to lengthen man's days, not to 
shorten them. Budde solves the problem by 
omitting this vexatious verse here and inserting 
it at the end of the third chapter of Genesis, 
where he discards the words pertaining to the 
Tree of Life — " the man has become like one of 
us, etc." — and substitutes '' My breath shall not 
always prevail in man, through their error [i.e., 
Adam and Eve's sin] he is flesh, so let his Hfe be 
one hundred and twenty years." This, however, 
is to rewrite the Scripture, not to explain it. 

* Wellhausen, ** Composition des Hexateuch," p. 306. 



(313) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

It seems to me much more natural to suppose 
that this speech of Jahveh, which certainly breaks 
the connection between the second and the 
fourth verses, and with which the fourth verse 
has nothing to do, was introduced by the Jeho- 
vist as his comment on the whole story. With- 
out this speech of Jahveh's, the story would have 
no moral or religious meaning whatever. It 
would be a mere piece of natural history, or, as 
we should say, of folk lore, and as such it would 
not deserve a place in our Book. With the third 
verse, however, it has a meaning. Difficult as 
the exact significance is to extract, the sense of 
the passage undoubtedly is that this mingling of 
heavenly and earthly beings is displeasing to 
God, and, with other causes, provokes Him to de- 
stroy the earth in the Flood. But for the present 
He prevents the pride and power of the Titanic 
race from rising too high by denying its mem- 
bers the immortality of their angelic sires, and 
even by shortening the previous term of human 
life. 

The fourth verse also is not altogether free 
from difficulty, but here the difficulty seems to 
arise from the fact that the verse is very loosely 
constructed. " The giants were on the earth in 
those days, and also afterwards; for the sons of 
God went in to the daughters of men, and these 
bare children to them. They are the heroes who 
were celebrated in gray antiquity." Two classes 
of beings are mentioned in this verse, both evi- 
dently the fruit of the union of heavenly with 
earthly beings — the giants, or Nephilim, and the 
heroes of the olden time. The Hebrews, Hke all 
other nations, believed in giants. You remem- 

(3^4) 



Giants 



ber when Moses sent the IsraeHtish spies to 
search the land of Canaan, they came back and 
reported, " And there we saw the giants, the sons 
of Anak, the giants, and we were in our own 
sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their 
sight." * In Deuteronomy we read : '' The peo- 
ple is greater and taller than we, the cities are 
great and walled up to heaven. Moreover, we 
saw the sons of Anakim there." f Sometimes 
these giants were called Nephilim and sometimes 
Anakim. Since the narrative speaks of them 
as living afterwards, it is very likely that these 
giants were associated with those which the 
Hebrew spies saw in Canaan. No doubt this 
strange story of ours was composed in part to 
account for the origin of such giants, who did 
not seem to belong to the human race. It need 
not surprise us that this race of giants survived 
the Flood, as this little tale was not composed 
originally with reference to the Flood. The Mo- 
hammedans get around this difificulty ingeniously 
in a giant story which occurs in a commentary on 
the Koran.:): There it is related that the giant Uj 
was born in the days of Adam and lived thirty-five 
hundred years. He was so tall that Noah's Flood 
did not trouble him at all, as it barely reached to 
his middle. I may say that beHef in giants exists 
throughout Asia, and that many relics of them 
are preserved — e.g., a grave twenty-seven feet 
long, opposite the Church Mission at Peshawur, 
which is held in great honor by both Moham- 

* Numbers, xiii. 33. The only other place in the Bible where 
the word Nephilim occurs. 
t Deut. i. 28. 
X Hughes's " Diet, of Islam," art. Giants. 



{315) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

medans and Hindus.* Traditions in regard to 
giants all arise in the same way. Some human 
beings are much larger than others, and they are 
supposed to be descended from a larger race. 
Certain works are discovered built on a grander 
scale than men now build, or bones of unknown 
animals are found which are falsely supposed to 
be human bones_, etc., etc. In regard to the 
Hebrews, it is plain that, apart from shadowy 
traditions, they knew next to nothing of the pre- 
historical races of Canaan. One of the tribes 
they mention there — the Rephaim — seems to 
be connected with the spirits of the dead.f But 
they found in Canaan the remains of some 
of those megalithic structures, dolmen, menhir, 
cromlechs, consisting of vast, unhewn stones 
arranged in circles or piled one on top of 
another in a way that seemed unaccountable 
except on the supposition that a larger and 
stronger humanity had lived and worked there. $ 
As for the renowned heroes of antiquity, every 
talented nation has preserved recollections of 
such men, and we can only be sorry that the 
Hebrews allowed so many of their oldest tradi- 
tions to perish. Those who wish to see every 
ramification of this narrative illustrated from far 
and near would be interested in Lenormant's 
brilliant chapter on the Children of God and the 
Daughters of Men. § 

We have now reached the grand catastrophe 
which made an end of the old world. The result 



* Hughes's "Diet, of Islam," art. Giants. 
f Stade, " Geschichte Israels," vol. i. p. 420, anm. 2. 
ISee Nowack's " Hebr. Archaologie," Kap. ii. 
§ " Beginnings of History," chap. vii. 

(3^6) 



End of the Old World 



of the first chapter of human history is summed 
up in the sad words : 

Chapter vi. 5. And Jahveh beheld that the wickedness 
of man was great on the earth, and the formation of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

6. And Jahveh repented that He had made man on the 
earth and it grieved Him at His heart. 

This leads directly to the story of the Flood, 
one of the greatest narratives in human litera- 
ture. It is naturally my wish to study these 
important chapters with care, and to leave out 
nothing that ought to be put in. I shall begin by 
taking account of our materials. 

We have already seen a good many times that 
in this portion of Genesis we have two separate 
and distinct sources of knowledge — the docu- 
ment of the Jehovist and the document of the 
Priestly Writer — which, as a rule, are easily dis- 
tinguished. These two documents continue to 
be our only guides through the intricacies of the 
great Flood narrative, but not in exactly the same 
manner as heretofore. In the earlier chapters of 
Genesis, as a rule, they have interpreted each 
other very little. First one author has told a 
complete story, then the other has followed with 
another complete story. The Priestly Writer, 
for example, gave the first account of Creation, 
the Jehovist gave the second, and followed it with 
a long and beautiful narrative of Eden, the Fall, 
Cain and Abel^ and the genealogy of Cain, in 
which the Priestly Writer did not once interrupt 
him. Then the Priestly Writer appeared again 
with the genealogy of Seth. In the story of the 
Flood, however, it is different. Both our writers 
have preserved very complete accounts of that 

(317) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

wonderful event, neither of which the editor of 
Genesis wished to sacrifice. Two courses, there- 
fore, were open to him. Either he could let 
these two accounts follow each other, as he did in 
the case of the two accounts of Creation, which 
would be rather mechanical; or else he could 
work both narratives together into one continu- 
ous story by breaking up each account and fitting 
the various fragments together as best he could. 
It is a proof of the care with which the Redactor 
did his work, that when these two dislocated 
documents are detached from each other arid are 
put together again in their original order, we 
have two independent and nearly complete stor- 
ies of the Flood — one from the Priestly Writer 
and the other from the Jehovist. 

There is one thing, however, which no editor, 
however conscientious, could avoid in piecing 
two narratives together in this way — that is, re- 
peating himself. This accounts satisfactorily 
and perfectly for those strange repetitions and 
discrepancies which run all through the Flood 
story, and w^hich so many persons have criticised 
or ridiculed. Those who are ignorant of the 
manner in which the Book of Genesis was com- 
posed have some excuse for their surprise or 
merriment, but for our part we do not criticise 
our Book on these grounds. On the contrary, 
we are thankful to our editor for not sacrificing 
either of his sources to the other. He might 
easily have done so and have produced one 
simple, straightforw^ard story without a single 
contradiction, thereby escaping the ridicule of 
many fools; but it w^ould have been a much 
poorer story than the rich and glorious narrative 

(3^8) 



Structure of Flood Story 



we possess. This is one of the occasions on which 
criticism closes the mouth of infideUty by show- 
ing the latter that it does not know what it is 
laughing or railing at. I shall point out some 
of these repetitions and discrepancies when it 
is necessary, but I do so with no intention of 
weakening the veracity of our Book. I only 
wish that you may see clearly how the Book is 
constructed and how our two narratives are com- 
bined. In regard to the trustworthiness of the re- 
sult, I will merely say that no portion of the Old 
Testament has been studied with more pains and 
with more conspicuous success than the story of 
the Flood. As to the relative proportions of the 
two documents in the Flood narrative, the larger 
part belongs to the Priestly Writer; very little 
seems to have been left out of his original ver- 
sion. All the computations of the years, the 
measurements of the ark, etc., are from his pen, 
and they are made in his characteristic style. 

Now let me make good my assertion in regard 
to repetitions and inconsistencies. There are 
two introductions to the Flood. The first, which 
I have just presented, is by the Jehovist. Jahveh 
repents of making man, and resolves to destroy 
man and beast and creeping thing. This passage 
ends with the words, *' But Noah found grace in 
the eyes of Jahveh." ^ Then the very next verse 
begins anew with Noah and repeats in different 
language what was said about the corruption of 
the earth. The first passage calls God Jahveh, 
the second calls Him Elohim. So Noah enters 
the ark twice. In the seventh verse of the 
seventh chapter we read " Noah went in and his 

* Gen. vi. 8. 



(319) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him, 
into the ark because of the waters of the flood." 
Forty days of continuous rain are supposed to 
pass, at the end of which time we are told again, 
'' In the selfsame day entered Noah and Shem 
and Ham and Japheth . . . into the ark." * 
The floating of the ark is twice described, " And 
the flood was forty days on the earth, and the 
waters increased and bare up the ark, and it 
was lift up above the earth." f And in the very 
next verse we read almost in the same words, 
" And the waters prevailed and were increased 
greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the 
face of the waters." Twice all flesh dies. " And 
all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of 
fowl and of cattle and of beast . . . and 
every man." % And in the next verse, " All in 
whose nostrils was the breath of life . . . 
died. And every living creature was destroyed 
. . . both man and cattle and creeping 
things." § Twice the subsiding of the waters is 
described.! The promise that the flood shall not 
be repeated is twice given. " And Jahveh 
smelled a sweet savor, and Jahveh said in his 
heart, * I will not again curse the ground any 
more. . . . Neither will I smite any more 
every thing living, as I have done.' " ^ In the 
next chapter Elohim makes a promise to Noah 
on the sign of the rainbow, " I will remember the 
covenant which is between me and you . . . 
and nevermore shall the waters rise to a flood to 
destroy all flesh." ** 



* 


vii. 


13. 




+ 


vii. 


17. 








X 


vii. 


21. 


^ 


Vll. 


22, 


23. 


1 


Vlll. 


2, 

■ ix, 


3, 
, I 


13, 

5- 


14. 


^\ 


Vlll 


. 21. 



(320) 



Repetitions and Contradictions 

Besides these repetitions there are a good 
many contradictions. In the nineteenth verse of 
the sixth chapter we read, '' And of every living 
thing of all flesh two of each sort shalt thou bring 
into the ark." But in the second verse of the 
seventh chapter it says, '' Of every beast that is 
clean thou shalt take seven pairs, the male with 
his mate, and of beasts that are not clean one 
pair." According to the eleventh verse of the 
same chapter the flood arose from two causes — 
the fountains of the deep were broken up and the 
windows of heaven were opened. According to 
the twelfth verse it was caused merely by heavy 
rains. The length of the rise and fall of the waters 
is differently estimated. According to the Je- 
hovist,* the rain fell for forty days and Noah 
floated on the water in his ark. Then he sent 
out a raven ; seven days later a dove ; after seven 
days more he sent the dove a second time, when 
it brought back an olive leaf. After other seven 
days he sent the dove a third time. Then he 
opened the door and went out himself. The 
whole duration of the Flood, therefore, was forty 
plus twenty-one days, or sixty-one days. But 
according to the Priestly Writer, the waters pre- 
vailed on the earth for one hundred and fifty 
days,t and it was more than a year before the 
earth was dry. if 

I pass over other repetitions and contradic- 
tions, but I think those mentioned are sufficient 
to prove that two separate accounts are closely 

*vii. 12. 
f vii. 24, 

X For most of these repetitions and contradictions, see Hol- 
zinger and Dillmann, who also give other examples. 

(321) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

interwoven in these chapters. No sane writer 
repeats and contradicts himself in this rpanner. 
In our study of the Flood I think it will be best 
to treat each account separately. There are, of 
course, differences of opinion as to the author- 
ship of some verses, but on the whole the Hne of 
cleavage is wonderfully distinct. 



(322) 



Two Accounts of the Flood 



Chapter Sixteen: 
The Two Stories of the Deluge 

WE come now to the great story of the 
Deluge, which, after the narrative of 
the Creation and Fall of man, is the portion of \ 
Genesis that "* has had the greatest effect in ^ 
shaping the thought of the world. The Flood 
narrative is the composite work of two writers 
whom we have already learned to know as the 
Priestly Writer and the Jehovist. Only here, 
instead of allowing their narratives to follow each 
other, the editor of Genesis has broken them up 
and has fitted the fragments together so as to 
form one rich and varied picture. In this mosaic 
some parts overlap, i.e., repetitions and discrepan- 
cies occur which could not well be avoided. The 
two documents are so dissimilar in style and ex- 
pression that it is possible, for the most part, to 
separate them, and in this way to discover the 
two original accounts, or all that is left of them. 
That is what I now propose to do. I am sure 
that we shall obtain a better insight into the nar- 
rative by studying the two accounts separately, 
and as nearly as possible as they came from the 
hands of their authors. The separation of these 
two documents is the result of a long critical proc- 
ess which has been going on for many years. I 
shall not attempt to describe the process now, 

(323) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

but shall give you its results. As to the trust- 
worthiness of these results I will only say that the 
most gratifying unanimity prevails among the 
great scholars. As a rule the line of cleavage is 
clear and distinct. The work of the Jehovist 
and the work of the Priestly Writer are easily dis- 
tinguished. It is true, the additions made by the 
Redactor in giving the work its present form are 
not always so plain, but where this uncertainty 
affects an important verse I shall call your at- 
tention to it. Let us begin with the account of 
the Jehovist. 

Jehovist's Story of the Flood : 

Chapter vi. 7. Then said Jahveh, " I will blot out men 
whom I have created from the earth, man as well as beast, 
worm and bird of the sky, since I repent that I made 
them." * 

/ No mention has as yet been made of any cor- 
*^fuption among the beasts, although the Priestly 
Writer speaks of the corruption of all flesh upon 
the earth, in which the beasts may be included. 
That need not surprise us, however, as the pur- 
pose of this verse is to lead to the Flood, which 
in the nature of things would drown beasts as 
well as men. Only the fishes were safe in that 
judgment. 

Jahveh repents that He made man and de- 
termines to destroy him. There is much that is 
curious in this conception. Such language ap- 
plied to the Diety is what theologians call an- 
thropopathic, i.e., it imputes human passion to 

* From the use of the Priestly Writer's word, ^ara = create, 
which is not an expression of the Jehovist, as well as from the 
enumeration, in the Priestly Writer's style, of beast, worm, and 
bird, this verse is usually ascribed to the Redactor. 

(324) 



Anthropomorphic Conceptions 

God. The expression is bold, but very naif. 
Jahveh, it is plain, is not omniscient. He was not 
able to foresee the result of creating such a being 
as man. Had He foreseen the consequences. He 
would not have created him. So Jahveh is sorry 
for what He has done, ''-it grieved Him at His 
heart." Jahveh naturally expected man to be 
good, and man is evil. Instead of attempting to 
make him better, Jahveh determines to destroy 
him. That is not the usual thought or language 
of the Old Testament, and we may be sure such 
an idea did not grow up on the soil of Israel's re- 
ligious faith. It is not a religious idea, but a sad 
admission of failure on the part of God, and, 
moreover, the purpose is not carried out. In the 
deliverance of Noah and his family, the seed is 
preserved out of which a second humanity will >^ 
grow, in most respects as bad as the first. 

Chapter vii. i. And Jahveh said to Noah, " Come thou 
and all thy house into the ark." 

The Priestly Writer is careful to enumerate 
the persons who are to be admitted. Nothing is 
said here about the building of the ark, which the 
Jehovist must have described. His description, 
however, was allowed to fall because the Priestly 
Writer described the ark more specifically, giv- 
ing dimensions according to his custom. The 
word for ark {tebah) occurs only in this narrative 
and in Exodus,* where the mother of Moses made 
an ark of bulrushes to serve as a watertight 
cradle for her babe. It has been regarded as an 
Egyptian word,t although we should rather ex- 
pect a Babylonian word here.t It does not ap- 

*Exod. ii. 3. f Gesenius, '* Thesaurus." :{: Halevy, Jensen. 
(325)' 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

pear to mean a ship or vessel, but a box or chest, 
incapable of propulsion. 

" For thee have I seen righteous before me in this gen- 
eration.* 

2, 3. " Of all clean animals thou shalt take seven pairs, f 
the male and his mate; and of animals which are not clean, 
one pair, the male and his mate. Also of the birds of the 
sky seven pairs [of each kind] in order to keep their seed 
alive on the face of all the earth." 

The distinction between clean and unclean ani- 
mals, in a liturgical sense, at least, is an antici- 
pation here. Noah is commanded to preserve a 
larger number of clean and useful animals to 
guard against possible accidents, to provide him 
with the means of sacrificing after the Flood, and 
in order that the clean animals may reproduce 
themselves more rapidly than the unclean.^ No 
such distinction is drawn in the Hebrew text be- 
tween the birds, and yet the raven's presence in 
the ark proves that other than clean birds were 
admitted, the raven being accounted unclean. 
** Every raven after his kind shall be an abomina- 
tion." § 

4. " For after seven days I will cause rain to fall for forty 
days and forty nights on the earth, and every existing thing 
which I have made I will blot out from the earth." 

7. Then Noah and all his house || went into the ark [for 
safety] from the waters of the flood. 

8, 9. Of clean beasts and of unclean, and of birds and of 
all that creep on the ground, they went in, in each case two 

* One name for the Babylonian Noah, Hasis Hadra, means 
pious and wise. (Addis.) 

f Literally, " seven seven." Here seven and seven, i.e., seven 
pairs. 

X Dillmann. 

^ Lev. xi. 15 ; see also Deut. xiv. 14. 

II The Priestly Writer's formula, sons, wife, and sons' wives, 
was inserted here by the Redactor. 

(326) 



Jehovist's Narrative 



[in pairs] to Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as 
Elohim commanded Noah.* 

i6. And Jahveh shut [the door] after him.f 

10. And after seven days the waters of the flood were on 
the earth. 

12. And a torrent of rain fell on the earth for forty days 
and forty nights. 

17. And the flood was on the earth forty days, t And the 
waters increased and carried the ark, and it floated high 
above the earth. 

22. Everything that had in its nostrils the breath of life, 
everything that lived on dry land died. 

Our narrative does not contemplate tlie de- 
struction of vegetattion, which must surely have 
taken place, since no pains were taken to avert 
this misfortune, as in the Persian story. When 
the waters recede the plants and trees are found 
living in their old places. 

23. And he [Jahveh] blotted out every existing thing on 
the surface of the ground, and Noah only was left, and 
they that were with him in the ark. 

Chapter viii. 2^. And the torrent of rain from heaven 
ceased. 

3^ And the waters subsided from the earth more and 
more. 

6. And it came to pass at the end of forty days that Noah 
opened the window [hatch] of the ark which he had made. 

7. And he sent forth a raven, and it went back and forth 
until the waters were dried up upon the earth. § 

The raven here, as everywhere, is mentioned 
as a bird of ill omen. Because of its well-known 
habit of preying" on the dead it would not search 

* The Redactor has substituted Elohim in this verse. The 
Sam. Pent., onkelos ; Vulg., etc., read Jahveh. (Addis.) 

f This last anthropomorphism has evidently been forced from 
its place. (Dillmann and Addis.) 

t Holzinger ascribes this verse to the Priestly Writer. 

§ The Septuagint has "and departing did not return," which 
is evidently a mistake, else what was the purpose of sending out 
the dove ? 



(327) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

for land as Noah wished it to do. Sated with 
carrion, it fluttered back to the ark and perched 
there until hunger drove it forth again, so it was 
useless for Noah's purpose. This bold and intel- 
ligent fowl is one of the most ancient and famous 
of birds. Almost alone among birds, it refuses 
to doff its glossy, black livery on the ice fields 
of the polar regions. Members of this family are 
found all over the world, from Asia to America. 
On account of its strange appearance and un- 
canny habits, the raven has been regarded with 
superstitious reverence by almost all nations as 
the bird of the dead. By the Greeks it was con- 
sidered as prophetic and was sacred to Apollo. 
In Northern mythology* two ravens (Hugin and 
Munin) sit on Odin's shoulders and fly forth 
every day to investigate Time; they* are a symbol 
of the omniscience of the god. The Roman 
augurs regarded the raven as the bird of m.ost 
evil import. As the symbol of the shades of the 
dead the Hindus gave him the food intended for 
the dead. Much more important for our pur- 
pose is the fact that the vikings on their voyages 
were in the habit of carrying many ravens with 
I them, which they let fly free from time to time 
\ to discover the direction of the land. Greenland 
is said to have been discovered in this way. Alex- 
ander the Great also is reported to have em- 
ployed ravens to guide him.f 

8. And he sent out a dove to see if the waters had abated 
from off the face of the ground. 



From verse ten, which speaks of Noah's wait- 

^thologi 
s Lexik 

"(3^ 



* Grimm, " Deutsche Mythologie," i. 122. 

f Meyer's " Conversations Lexikon," 5te Auf., art. Rabe. 



The Sending Forth of the Birds 

ing yet seven other days before sending out the 
dove a second time, it would appear that seven 
days, the mention of which is omitted in the 
text, elapsed between the sending of the raven 
and the sending of the dove the first time. This 
is important in calculating the duration of the 
Flood. 

9. But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, 
and she returned to him in the ark, for waters were on the 
face of the whole earth. 

It is unnecessary for me to say much of the 
dove, one of the best known of birds, which, on 
account of its gentleness, its fertility, and its 
mysterious cooing, Christianity has associated 
with the Holy Spirit. Among the ancients, the 
Chinese and Egyptians used doves as we do still, 
to transmit messages. By their assistance the 
Greeks sent to Athens the news of their victories 
over the Persians. The Romans also employed 
carrier pigeons, at the latest date, under the em- 
perors. Diocletian is said to have established a 
regular pigeon post."*" Ihering confidently as- 
serts that the dove was the marine compass of the 
Babylonians, and that every ship going to sea had 
doves on board, which were let loose if it was de- 
sired to ascertain the direction of the neighbor- 
ing coast or islands. f Although Ihering gives 
no authority for this statement, it is extremely 
probable, and this circumstance in itself indi- 
cates that our account of the sending out of the 
birds originated among a sea-faring people, not 
among the Hebrews, who never were navigators. 

* Meyer's " Con. Lex.," art. Tauben. 
f " Evolution of the Aryan," 170, 171. 

(329) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

And he put forth his hand and took her and brought her 
into the ark. 

10. And he waited yet seven days more, and again he sent 
forth the dove out of the ark. 

11. And the dove came to him at eventide, and behold, 
*/ in her beak a fresh oHve leaf. So Noah knew that the 

■^ ^ J waters were abated from ofif the face of the earth. 



>^ 



The fresh olive leaf was a sign to Noah that 
the waters had fallen considerably, as the olive 
does not grow on high mountains.* 

12. And he waited seven days longer and sent out the 
dove, but this time she did not return to him again. 

13 '^. And Noah removed the roof of the ship (ark) and 
looked out, and lo ! the face of the ground was dry. 

This verse throws light on the sending out of 
the birds. The *' window " mentioned above was 
apparently a little hatch in the cover of the great 
chest, so high above Noah's head that looking 
through it he could see nothing but a small patch 
of sky. Hence he was obHged to depend on birds 
to take observations for him. We must re- 
member, however, that this episode of the birds 
is taken directly from the Babylonian Flood 
story, or, rather, it is a part of it. The Baby-, 
Ionian Noah, however, has a rigged ship, not a 
chest, and the birds were originally introduced 
with reference to navigation. 

20. And Noah built an altar to Jahveh, and took of every 
clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt 
offerings upon the altar. 

Noah's exit from the ark was omitted here be- 
cause it was related more circumstantially by the 
Priestly Writer. His first act most naturally is a 

* Dillmann. 
(330) 



Origin of Altar 



solemn sacrifice of thanksgiving to Jahveh for 
his own preservation and for the preservation of 
those he loved, an example to many persons who 
ask for the prayers of the Church on going to sea, 
but who forget to give thanks when they safely 
reach land. This is the first mention of an altar 
in the Bible. Such an act as the erection of an 
altar and the offering of sacrifice in Armenia we 
may be very sure would not be tolerated by the 
Priestly Writer, since he held to the unhistorical 
idea that an altar might be reared only in Jerusa- 
lem, and that acceptable sacrifice could be of- 
fered only by the sons of Aaron. This view, how- 
ever, is not shared by the Jehovist, and it is con- 
tradicted on every page of Israel's early history. 
The motive underlying the development of the 
altar seems to have been something like this: 
The early Semites, including the Hebrews, be- 
lieved that every object of Nature which re- 
minded them of the greatness or the goodness of 
God, such as a refreshing fountain, a fine tree, a 
rock, or a mountain, was the abiding place of 
deity. They were therefore in the habit of bring- 
ing gifts and offerings to such a place, exposing 
them on the rock, hanging them on the tree, or 
pouring oil over a stone, as Jacob did in Bethel 
when he said, '' Jahveh is indeed in this place, 
although I did not know it." Charming as this 
belief was, it was a great advance when men 
learned that the Deity not only lived among the 
objects He had created, but that He would also 
take up His abode among men, and that where an 
artificial heap of stones was raised and sacrifice 
was offered the god was present and the sacrifice 
was accepted. The tendency in Israel, however, 



(331) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

which finally resulted in the one central sanctuary 
at Jerusalem, gained ground slowly. For a long 
time it was believed that Jahveh was to be found 
only on certain ancient mountains, or that He 
preferred to dwell in the neighborhood of some 
old sanctuary, where He had been worshipped 
time out of mind. This is why places like Bethel 
and Shechem, Hebron and Mount Carmel, were 
regarded as so sacred that people would travel 
a long distance to worship there. Even after 
these old places of worship were discredited and 
the altar of Jerusalem alone was recognized, the 
presence of God was still a very local thing, and 
from the time the Jews were expelled from Jeru- 
salem, to this day, no sacrifice has been offered by 
them.* 

21. And Jahveh smelled the sweet fragrance, and Jahveh 
said in His heart, " I will not again curse the ground any 
more on account of man, for the thought of man's heart 
is evil from its youth up, and I will not again smite every 
living thing as I have done." 

The religious significance of this verse is very 
peculiar. The conception of Jahveh pacified by 
the sweet smell of burning fat and flesh is cer- 
tainly crude, though the expression may be only 
an echo of the Babylonian story, which is cruder 
still. The motive of Jahveh's determination not 
to destroy human life again is left uncertain. Is 
it because the extinction of so bad a creature as 
man is not worth the sacrifice of earth's crea- 
tures, or is it that Jahveh sorrowfully takes for 
granted that the wickedness of man is innate and 
permanent, and despairs of making him better? 

*See W. R. Smith, " Religion of the Semites," pp. 184, 189, 
358, ff. Also Hastings' '* Diet, of the Bible," 1898, art. Altar. 

(332) 



The Priestly Writer's Story 

Either thought is depressing, but of man's im- 
provement by God's help and of his final victory 
over evil there is not a word. So even the Flood 
has failed to accomplish its drastic purpose, and 
the Jehovist's story ends merely with the promise 
that henceforth the regular processes of Nature 
shall not be interrupted on man's account. 

22. " While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold 
and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not 
cease." 

I refrain from calling your attention to the 
great salient characteristics of this story, as I can 
bring them out better in connection with the nar- 
rative of the Priestly Writer. I therefore merely 
remind you that in the document of the Jehovist, 
supplemented by a few verses of the Redactor, 
we still have a perfectly intelligible and tolerably 
complete account of the Flood. The two prin- 
cipal episodes lacking in the Jehovist's narratives 
are the building of the ark and the departure 
from the ark; and they are lacking because they 
are related more acceptably by the Priestly 
Writer, to whose account I now turn. I think 
all will perceive the difference in the style and in 
the order of ideas. 

Priestly Writer's Story of the Flood : 

Chapter vi. 9, 10, 11. This is the history of Noah: Noah 
was a righteous man, a perfect man among his contem- 
poraries. Noah walked with Elohim. And Noah begot 
three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.* But the earth was 
corrupted before Elohim, and the earth was full of violence. 

* We learn the number and the names of Noah's sons first from 
the Priestly Writer. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

The Priestly Writer says nothing about the 
cause of this corruption. In the first chapter of 
Genesis he described how God made all things 
good; in his genealogy of the patriarchs he let 
signs appear of man's increasing deterioration. 
Now the fall from God is complete, and the cor- 
ruption of life calls for judgment. According to 
him this corruption extends to all flesh, including 
even the animals. Rapine and violence have be- 
come the rule. 

12. Then Elohim saw that the earth was profoundly cor- 
rupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth. 

13. And Elohim said to Noah, " The end of all flesh is 
determined before me, for the earth is filled with wanton 
violence through them. So I am about to destroy them 
from ofif the earth. 

14. " Make for thyself an ark [a chest] of pine wood, with 
cells [nests] thou shalt make the ark, and thou shalt smear 
it with pitch [bitumen] inside and outside." 

The cells or compartments are for the differ- 
ent animals and birds. It is very plain that these 
words were written for a people who knew noth- 
ing of ship building. The ark is merely a great 
box, not a keeled vessel. It can only float, and is 
incapable of propulsion either by sails or by oars. , 
The direction to caulk it would be superfluous to 
anyone acquainted with the building of ships. 

15. " And according to these measurements shalt thoti 
make it: the length of the ark, three hundred cubits; its 
breadth, fifty cubits; and its height, thirty cubits." 

It is extraordinary that the precise length of a 
linear standard so frequently mentioned in the 
Bible as the Hebrew cubit should be unknown to 
us ; yet such is the case. The natural cubit, as its 

(334) 



The Hebrew Cubit 



name implies, is the distance from the elbow 
{kvI^itov, Latin, ulna, ell) to the end of the mid- 
dle finger. As this varies in different persons, it 
helps us to no exact conclusion. The matter is 
further complicated by the fact that the Hebrews 
at different times employed two different linear 
standards both called cubits {ammah). Ezekiel,* 
in calculating his imaginary temple, tells us that 
he makes use of a cubit (evidently an older cubit) 
which is one hand breadth longer than the cubit 
in common use. The common cubit, according 
to all accounts, was divided into six hand 
breadths. Ezekiel's cubit, therefore, must have 
contained seven hand breadths. Unfortunately, 
the breadth of the human hand varies as much as 
the length of the forearm, and no material object 
measured in terms of the Hebrew cubit has 
come down to us. The length of the old Egyp- 
tian cubit we know from measuring sticks pre- 
served in Egyptian tombs. It equalled 527 mm., 
or about 20.74 English inches, and was divided 
into seven hand breadths. It may, therefore, very 
well have corresponded with the older Hebrew 
standard mentioned by Ezekiel. The Egyptians 
also possessed a smaller cubit of six hand 
breadths, containing 450 mm., or 17.71 inches. 
That the Egyptian cubit was the standard em- 
ployed in Israel in the earliest times is by no 
means certain. In the light of the Tel-el-amarna 
tablets it would seem probable that the early He- 
brew standards of measurement were borrowed 
from Babylon. The Babylonian linear standard 
was slightly greater than the Egyptian. The 
Babylonians likewise possessed two cubits, one 

*Ezek. xl. 5, xliii. 13. 



(335) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

estimated from the scale on the drawing board of 
the statue of Gudea, found in Telloh, in South 
Babylonia, of ^ mm., or about 19.58 English 
inches; and another larger royal cubit of 550 
mm., or 21.55 EngHsh inches. It will be seen 
that the Babylonian cubit stands to the Egyptian 
as II :io, or more nearly as 22:21. In any case, 
the Hebrew cubit corresponds with the smaller 
cubit of six hand breadths, and opinion still leans 
to the cubit of Egypt rather than to that of Baby- 
lon. All the old rabbinical calculations based on 
eggs, barleycorns, etc., lead to nothing. Neither 
do the dimensions of Solomon's temple, the con- 
tents of the brazen sea, etc., any longer lead to 
certain conclusions.* I know of only one object 
measured by Hebrew standards to which I can 
point. In the celebrated Siloam inscription dis- 
covered in Jerusalem in 1880 we read, '' The 
water flowed from the spring [i.e., the Virgin's 
spring] to the pool for a distance of 1200 cubits." 
Captain Conders, who measured the tunnel, 
found it to be 537.6 m., or about 1763.77 English 
feet in length. From this measurement, which 
it must be confessed is rough, the length of the 
Hebrew cubit would be about 448 mm., or 17.9 
inches. This is surprisingly near the lesser Egyp- 
tian cubit of 17.71 inches, considering the clumsy 
method by which the Hebrew cubit was cal- 
culated.! 

Estimating the Hebrew cubit roughly at 18 
inches, the length of the ark would be 450 feet, 

* See F. Hultsch, " Griechische und Romische Metrologie." 
Berlin, 1882, p. 437, etc. 

f See Nowack's " Hebr. Alterthumer," i. 199 ff., and Ben- 
zinger, 178 ff. 

(336) 



The Ark 



its breadth 75 feet, and its height 45 feet. Its di- 
mensions, therefore, are not very different from 
those of a large steamship of the present time. 
We must remember, however, that the ark was 
simply an oblong chest, not a moulded vessel. Its 
floor space would be about 33,750 square feet. 
Multiplying this by three for the three stories, we 
should have a total floor space of 101,250 square 
feet. Allowing each animal a standing room of 
5 feet square, or 25 square feet, the ark would 
have accommodated four thousand and fifty ani- 
mals, without allowing any space for their prov- 
ender. Whether a chest of these proportions 
would maintain its equilibrium has been ques- 
tioned, and answered by the Mennonite Peter 
Jensen and by other Dutchmen, who, in the sev- 
enteenth century, built several arks of these pro- 
portions on a reduced scale, which proved able to 
float and to carry a cargo.* Such vessels, of 
course, could not withstand a heavy sea, and 
Noah's ark did not go to sea. It merely floated 
on the flood as houses float in a freshet. The 
next features of the ark are very obscure. 

16. " A window thou shalt make to the ark above, a cubit 
wide shalt thou make it." 

To this it may be objected that so small a win- 
dow would give neither light nor air to so large 
a vessel. Others translate this word " roof," as 
a roof is not otherwise mentioned, and the ark 
would certainly require a roof to prevent it from 
filling with rain. Dillmann ingeniously thinks of 
an air space a cubit high under the roof of the 
ark, and running all the way around it, which 

* Dillmann. 



(337) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



would have contributed greatly to the comfort of 
the passengers, could those in the lower stories 
have partaken of its benefits. 

" And the door of the ark shalt thou place in its side." 



Whether in the long side or in the end we are 
not told. 

" And with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou 
make it." 

St. Augustine was perfectly right in thinking 
that it would have taken Noah a hundred years 
to make such a vessel, even if he had had good 
tools. 

17, 18. " For behold, I am bringing the flood waters on 
the earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life 
from under the heavens. All that is on the earth will die. 
But I will est?blish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt 
enter the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife and thy sons' 
wives with thee." 

This is the first mention in the Bible of the 
great word covenant which played so important 
a part in the religion of the Hebrews. It means 
here what it means always, a solemn engagement 
into which God deigns to enter with man, a 
promise that if man will do his part God will not 
fail him. The nature of all God's covenants is 
finely brought out in this passage. God prom- 
ises to save Noah from destruction on the condi- 
tion that Noah will do what he can to save him- 
self. Noah, on his side, has faith in God. He be- 
lieves that the calamity of which God warned him 
is coming, and he prepares to meet it. God, 

(338) 



Collecting the Animals 



however, does not build the ark for him. Noah 
has to do that himself. God tells him that he will 
need an ark, gives him the plan, and lets him ex- 
ecute it, — an admirable picture of the way God 
saves men by teaching them to save themselves. 

19. " And of every living thing of all flesh, two of each 
sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with 
thee, male and female shall they be. 

20. " Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after its kind, 
of every thing which creeps on the ground after its kind, 
two of each shall go with thee into the ark to be kept alive." 

It is not said that God imposed on Noah the 
duty of capturing all these birds and beasts, 
which would have been a most tiresome task, and 
would have caused him to wander far and wide. 
They are rather represented as coming to Noah 
of their own accord in an orderly procession, two 
and two, male and female. 

21. "And thou shalt take to thyself all food which is eaten, 
and gather it beside thee, and it shall be for nourishment 
for thee and for them." 

22. Thus did Noah: according to all that Elohim com- 
manded him, so did he. 

Chapter vii. 6. Now Noah was six hundred years old 
when the deluge of waters was on the earth. 

II. In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the 
second month, on the seventeenth day of the month,* all 
the springs of the great abyss gushed out and the windows 
of heaven were opened. 

So the Priestly Writer explains the coming of 
the Flood strictly in accordance with his cos- 
mical views laid down in the first chapter of Gen- 
esis. The flood waters came from two sources : 
first, from the great abyss (Tehom) beneath the 
earth, whose depths, confined by God at creation, 

* The existence of the calendar is here tacitly assumed. 



(339) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

suddenly burst their bonds. These fountains, ris- 
ing through subterranean channels, over- 
whelm the earth, as they did before Elohim sep- 
arated them from the dry land. Secondly, the 
heavenly reservoirs contribute their quota. Elo- 
him opens the windows of the firmament which 
holds the upper waters in check, and lets them 
pour down in rain upon the earth. In short, the 
world returns to chaos, and the coming of the 
flood is far more powerfully depicted than by the 
Jehovist's forty days of rain. Is this sudden erup- 
tion of waters from beneath merely a part of the 
Priestly Writer's cosmical machinery? Or is it 
based on an ancient tradition of some seismic dis- 
turbance which launched a tidal wave of gigantic 
height ? That is a question we shall have to dis- 
cuss later. 

13. In that same day went Noah and his sons, Shem, 
Ham, and Japheth into the ark, and Noah's wife and the 
three wives of his sons with them into the ark. 

Noah's wife, it will be noticed, is always men- 
tioned after his sons. 

14. They and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle 
after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on 
the ground after its kind, and every winged thing, every 
bird of every sort. 

15. And they went in to Noah, into the ark, two and two, 
of all flesh in which is the breath of life. 

16. And they that went in were a male and a female of 
all flesh, as Elohim had commanded him. 

18. And the waters increased more and more upon the 
earth, and all the high mountains which were under the 
waters. 

19. And the waters prevailed to the utmost upon the 
earth, and all the high mountains which were under the 
whole heaven were covered. 

20. Fifteen cubits did the waters prevail, so that the 
mountains were covered. 

(340) 



Height of the Waters 



The object of the writer is to prove conclu- 
sively that all humanity and all animals, except 
those in the ark, perished. Hence it was neces- 
sary that all mountains should be covered. This, 
of course, is a physical impossibility through any 
causes known to us, such as tidal waves, rains, 
hurricanes, etc. Exactly how many times all the 
water now on the earth would have to be multi- 
plied to produce such an effect I am not prepared 
to say. But it is not necessary to call in the tes- 
timony of geologists like Lyell to prove that no 
such universal deluge has taken place during the 
present geologic era. Even if such masses of 
water had been heaped up on the earth, what 
would have become of them? How would it be 
possible for them to disappear in six months, as 
our writer says, and to leave the earth in its 
former condition, even with its vegetation unin- 
jured? According to the statement of the 
Priestly Writer, the waters stood nearly twenty- 
three feet high above the tops of the highest 
mountains, but soon after the flood began to 
abate the ark grounded on Mount Ararat. 
Mount Ararat, then, in the opinion of our writer, 
was the highest mountain in the world, as not 
until two and a half months after the ark had 
grounded did the peaks of other mountains be- 
come visible. But, on the contrary, there are 
other mountains more than ten thousand feet 
higher than the mountains of Ararat. Again we 
read, after two months and a half had elapsed, 
that the waters were entirely drained from off the 
earth. According to this calculation, supposing 
the waters to have subsided at a uniform rate. 
Mount Ararat must have been nearly twice as 



(341) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

high as any other mountain in the world, which 
is a great mistake. Some peaks of Mount Ararat, 
however, are about seventeen thousand feet high, 
and if these were submerged the whole inhabited 
world would have been covered. But at the time 
at which the Hebrew tradition places the Flood, 
Egypt, in the valley of the Nile, had attained a 
high degree of civilization, and not only did it 
escape destruction, but it has not even a tradi- 
tion that any flood took place. 

21. Then all flesh which moves on earth died, birds and 
cattle and beasts and every creeping thing which swarms 
on the earth, and mankind. 

24. And the waters increased on the earth for one hun- 
dred and fifty days. 

Chapter viii. i, 2. Then E^ohim remembered Noah and 
all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the 
ark. And Elohim caused a wind to pass over the earth 
so that the waters fell, and the springs of the abyss and the 
windows of heaven were closed. 

3*^. And after one hundred and fifty days the waters were 
decreasing. 

4. So the ark stood still on the mountains of Ararat, in 
the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month. 



(342) 



Mountains of Ararat 



( 



Chapter Seventeen: 

The End of the Deluge. The Flood Tradition 
in Antiquity 

WE left the ark resting on one of the peaks 
of Ararat, which, in the estimation of 
our writer, was the highest mountain in the 
world. By the '' mountains of Ararat " we natur- 
ally understand the two peaks of Great and Little 
Ararat in Armenia, between Russia, Turkey, and 
Persia. That, however, is not precisely what the 
Hebrew writer meant to convey. Ararat is men- 
tioned in two other places in the Old Testament, 
each time as a country. Once, after the sons of 
Sennacherib had murdered their father, we read 
that they fled to Ararat,* and once Jeremiah 
called on the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and 
Aschenaz to rise against Babylon. f There is 
therefore no definite reason to associate the 
'' mountains of Ararat " with any particular peak. 
From the description of Noah's landing place as 
the highest mountain in the world, we should 
infer that the writer did not possess any definite 
geographical knowledge. There is also no good 
reason for associating the mountains called Ara- 
rat on our modern maps with the landing place 
of Noah. The Armenians simply called them 
Masis. Several other mountains have also been 

*2 Kings, xix. 37. f Jeremiah, li. 27. 

(343) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

identified with Noah's landing place. St. Je- 
rome * speaks definitely of the plain of the mid- 
dle Araxes, at the foot of the great mountain 
(Taurus), relying on an older tradition. The 
Jews from the first century invariably identified 
the country Ararat with Kardu (in Targums, also 
Peshitta). Kardu is the land of the Kurds, its 
mountains lie between the Tigris, the Upper Zab, 
and Lake Van, where A. H. Sayce seems to lo- 
cate Noah's landing.f With this tradition 
Berosus seems to agree, if we read Cordyean in- 
stead of Corcyraean.$ Against this Noldeke 
rightly objects that the Kurds could not have 
composed the kingdom in the time of Jeremiah, 
hence Kurdistan is improbable. Neither can 
Ararat by any means be identified with Mount 
Nisir, the landing place of Sit-napistim, which lies 
east of Assyria. It is therefore impossible to de- 
fine Noah's landing place more exactly than by 
saying that it took place on one of the mountains 
of the ancient country of Ararat, in southeastern 
Armenia, between the Araxes and Lake Van. 
The mountain we call Ararat lies almost in the 
Icentre of Armenia, nearly equally distant from 
the Black Sea and the Caspian, the Mediter- 
ranean and the Persian Gulf, on a plateau about 
three thousand feet above the level of the sea. 
It rises in the form of a graceful, isolated cone to 
the height of 17,112 feet above the sea. An ex- 
plorer who ascended Ararat in 1868 declared that 
no mountain he had ever seen made on him the 
impression of the " Armenian Giant," whose 

* Jerome on Isaiah, xxxvii. 38, quoted by Bochart. 
I Hastings' "Bible Diet.," art. Ararat. 

:f Syncellus' Chron, in Cory's " Fragments," 19. Also in 
Josephus, " Antiq." i. 3, 6. 

(344) 



Landing Place of Ark 



steep sides for nine thousand feet were covered 
with snow.* 

Professor Tiele and Dr. Kosters, in the new 
" Encyclopaedia Biblica," attempt to make the 
landing place of Noah coincide with the moun- 
tains in the land of Nisir, placing the latter further 
to the northeast, just south of the Caspian Sea. 
There lies the celebrated mythical sky-mountain, 
Elburz, called by the northern Iranians Hara- 
berezaiti, or Hara haraiti bares. The latter name 
Tiele and Kosters think may have been con- 
founded by the Hebrew writer with the land of 
Urarti, or Ararat. In this conjecture I see they 
have not been followed by the map-maker of the 
Encyclopaedia.! (Every critic should be his own 
map-maker.) Welcome as would be an agree- 
ment between the cuneiform and the Biblical 
accounts of the landing place of the ark, this con- 
jecture can hardly be accepted, i. The moun- 
tains of Nisir would have to be moved from the 
country southeast of the lower Zab mentioned in 
Asurnasirbal's inscription % to the land directly 
south of the Caspian Sea. 2. There is nothing 
to show that the Biblical writers knew of the dis- 
tant mountains of Elburz by either of their 
names, and the corruption of Hara haraiti bares 
to Ararat is a mere conjecture. 3. Tiele and 
Kosters observe a discreet silence in regard to 
the tradition of the landing place of the ark 
preserved by Berosus. It is a fact of great 
importance, however, that Berosus, both in the 
Flood story preserved by Alexander Polyhistor 

* *' Encyclo. Britannica," art. Ararat. 

jSchrader, K. A. T. 53. 

\ See map of Syria, Assyria, etc. 



■^4 V 



(345) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

and in that of Abydenus, specifically mentions 
Armenia as the landing place of the ark. Alex- 
ander Polyhistor, it is true, first merely says that 
the ark stranded on some mountain, but Xisu- 
thros, in taking leave of his friends, informs them 
that the land in which they are is Armenia. 
Abydenus, however, informs us that after Sisu- 
thros had embarked in his ship, he " sailed im- 
mediately to Armenia." We have here, there- 
fore, a corrobation of the Biblical account, which 
is all the stronger because it is indirect. Genesis 
merely says that the ark grounded on a mountain 
of the land of Ararat (eastern Armenia), while 
Berosus, using the name in vogue in his day, 
calls the landing place Armenia. Of late years 
the singular confirmation of Berosus' history 
through the cuneiform sources have led scholars 
to place a high estimate on the accuracy of the 
traditions recorded by him. Neither does this 
narrative appear to have been tampered with by 
the writers through whose hands it passed, as 
we can show in at least one instance. Alexander 
Polyhistor and Abydenus relate that in after ages 
the people collected fragments of the ark which 
they used for charms and amulets, and this tale 
Josephus, who also drew his information from 
Berosus, records in almost the exact language of 
Alexander.* Since Scheil's fragment of the 
Flood story of Sippara was discovered, it is rec- 
ognized that more than one Babylonian Flood 
story existed in ancient times, and Berosus, who 
speaks constantly of Sippara, may very well have 
followed that tradition rather than the tradi- 

* Compare Josephus, " Ant. Jud." i. 3, 6, with Alex. Polyh. in 
Cory's " Fracrments," 29. 

(346) 



Armenia the Landing Place. 



tion contained in Izdubar, from which he fre- 
quently departs so widely. I abide by the opin- 
ion, therefore, that Ararat and Armenia repre- 
sent one ancient tradition of the landing place of 
the ark which is not identical with the landing in 
Nisir, and that this old tradition is not to be 
shifted to the land south of the Caspian Sea on 
the strength of a doubtful etymology. 

In regard to the reason why the mountains of 
Ararat or Armenia were chosen as the landing 
place of the ark, I may venture the following ob- 
servations : 

1. It appears to be certain that the Priestly 
Writer in mentioning Ararat followed an ancient 
tradition preserved by Berosus. Scheil's '' copy" 
of the Flood tablet of Sippara, which dates from 
the twenty-second century before Christ, gives 
us a hint as to how old this tradition may be, 
while the fact that even at Berosus' time people 
continued to look for pieces of the ark in Ar- 
menia indicates that the legend which fixed the 
landing place of the ark in the mountains of Ar- 
menia had sunk deep into the popular mind. 

2. Although it is plain from the allusions of 
Isaiah and Jeremiah to Ararat that the Hebrews 
possessed some geographical knowledge of Ar- 
menia, it does not follow that such was the case 
at the time the Flood legend was formed in Bab- 
ylonia. On the contrary, there is nothing more 
mythical in Berosus' account than his allusions 
to this mountain. After being warned by Kro- 
nos,* Xisuthros asks the deity whither he is to 
sail. The directness of the reply startles us, " To 
the gods !" and Abydenus adds, "he sailed imme- 

* In Alex. Polyh. 



(347) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

diately to Armenia." The lofty peaks of Ar- 
menia, therefore, appear to have been regarded 
by the Babylonians as a mythical mountain of 
the gods. Another mythical touch in Berosus 
is the translation of Xisuthros' pilot, which oc- 
curs in no other version. This circumstance 
shows us that Xisuthros' voyage was not yet 
over, and that he needed a pilot to guide him 
to the abode of the gods. When Xisuthros dis- 
embarked he was immediately translated ; he was 
taken up to live with the gods, and was seen no 
more on earth. That the Babylonians enter- 
tained belief in such a mythical mountain is well 
known. Indeed, it is probably from them that 
the idea passed to so many other peoples. Like 
other nations, they placed this mountain to the 
north,* and the great northern mountains of Ar- 
arat, so long as they were little known, would 
have served well for this purpose. Even the 
Hebrews were by no means strangers to this be- 
lief. I remind you of the striking description of 
the mountain of God in Ezekiel, and of the 
equally striking words of Isaiah : 

" Thou didst say in thy heart: the heavens will I scale, 
I will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the recesses of 

the North, 
I will mount above even the hills of the clouds, I will 
match the Most High." f 

In the Book of Genesis the mythical features 
of this mountain have almost wholly disap- 
peared. Otherwise the writer would hardly 
have ventured to assert that the waters of the 
Flood rose over the mountain of God. The only 

* Jensen, "Cosmol." 23. 

f Is. xiv. 13, 14. Cheyne's translation. 

(348) 



Duration of Flood 



mythical feature of Ararat is its vast height. It 
is not only the highest mountain of the world, but 
it is more than twice as high as any other moun- 
tain. In the account of Manu's flood in the Sata- 
patha Brahmana, Manu was directed to sail to 
'' yonder Northern Mountain," which was after- 
ward called '' Manu's Descent." 

5. And the waters went on decreasing until the tenth 
month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, 
the summits of the mountains appeared. 

13^ And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year 
[of Noah's life], in the first month, on the first day of the 
month, that the waters were drained off from the earth. 

14. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day 
of the month, the earth was dry. 

This is the place to ascertain the length of the 
Flood in the estimation of the Priestly Writer. 
The Flood, it will be remembered, according to 
his computation, began on the seventeenth day 
of the second month. The waters increased for 
one hundred and fifty days, after which time the 
ark grounded on the mountain on the seven- 
teenth day of the seventh month. On the first 
day of the tenth month, as we have just seen, the 
tops of the mountains became visible. On the 
first day of the first month of the next year the 
earth was drained of the waters, and on the 
twenty-seventh day of the second month the 
earth was entirely dry. The flood, therefore, 
lasted from the seventeenth day of the second 
month of one year to the twenty-seventh day of 
the second month of the next year, or one year 
and eleven days. This calculation seems to be 
very simple. The early Hebrews employed the 
lunar month of twenty-nine days, twelve hours 

(349) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

and forty-four minutes.* Twelve such months 
contained three hundred and fifty-four days; 
adding eleven days, we obtain three hundred and 
sixty-five days. The author therefore evidently 
wishes to show that the Flood lasted a full solar 
year. But with this supposition his other calcu- 
lations of time do not agree. Between the sev,- 
enteenth day of the second month, when Noah 
entered the ark, and the seventeenth day of the 
seventh month, when the ark rested on Ararat, 
exactly five months elapsed. If, as we suppose, 
these are lunar months, they would consist of 
one hundred and forty-seven or one hundred and 
forty-eight days. On the contrary, the author 
says distinctly that they were one hundred and 
fifty daySjt or even more than one hundred and 
fifty days, if we allow a little time for the settUng 
of the waters before the ark grounded. In this 
case, after all, the author had in mind a month of 
thirty days, not the old lunar month. This is an 
inconsistency, or perhaps we had better say a 
difficulty. The 354 + 11 = 365 days is very at- 
tractive as assigning a full solar year to the 
Flood; while on the other hand 360+ 11 = 371, 
or 365 + 11 = 376, has no significance. Budde J 

* This, however, was in early, probably in nomadic days. I 
think the lunar month is proved, among other things, by a week 
of seven days, by the fact that the Hebrew day began in the even- 
ing, by the name for month, chodesh = new moon, by the im- 
portance of the new moon as a festival. This clumsy method of 
dividing the year could hardly have continued long after the oc- 
cupation of Canaan, and a month of thirty days seems to have 
been in vogue before the Exile, probably borrowed from the 
Canaanites. See Nowack, " Hebr. Archaol." 215-217. Ben- 
zinger, 199-200. The old lunar month is introduced here as a 
piece of archaeology. 

f Gen. viii. 3. 

X " Urgeschichte," 273. 

(350) 



Time of Year 



therefore conjectures that the one hundred and 
f^fty days estimated as five months are merely 
round numbers, which is improbable, as the 
Priestly Writer is very careful in calculations of 
this sort. Dillmann, on the contrary, rightly ad- 
mits that we have here two inconsistent calcula- 
tions, probably from two different hands. One 
represents the Flood as lasting for a full solar 
year (354 +11 days). The other calculation 
represents the Flood as one hundred and fifty 
days in coming and doubtless as one hundred 
and fifty days in going ; or, as lasting three hun- 
dred days, i. e., ten months of thirty days. Per- 
haps this writer originally added two months for 
the drying of the earth, which v/ould round out a 
year of three hundred and sixty days. It will be 
noticed that the introduction of the one hundred 
and fifty days, which caused so much disturbance, 
is not necessary for the calculation of the Flood, 
which rests on months and days of months. If 
the one hundred and fifty days were added by 
the editor, it is strange that he did not harmonize 
them better with the forty days of the Jehovist. 

As for the time of year when the Flood began, 
we are told that it came in the second month on 
the seventeenth day of the month. The old He- 
brew calendar dated the beginning of the year 
from the autuqjn.* It is true, in the later parts 
of the Pentateuch, the Priestly Writer states 
that the year began in the spring with the month 
Nisan (April), but he represents that change as 
introduced by Moses, f so that we may be sure he 
would not commit the mistake of regarding this 

*Nowack, 220 ; Benzinger, igg. Cf. Exod. xxiii. i6, xxxiv. 22. 
f Exod. xii. 2. 



(35>) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

system as in vogue at the time of the Flood. 
With him, therefore, the year began with Tishri 
(roughly, October), and the second month would 
be Marcheschvan, or November, when the heavy 
rains of Palestine began to fall. Why the seven- 
teenth day of the month was selected and not the 
fifteenth, on which the full moon falls, has not 
been discovered.* 

15. Then Elohim spoke to Noah and said, 

16. " Go out of the ark, thou, and thy wife and thy sons 
and thy sons' wives with thee. 

17. " Bring out with thee all the beasts that are with thee, 
of all flesh, birds and cattle, and every creeping thing that 
creeps on the earth, that they may swarm on the earth and 
be fruitful and multiply on the earth." 

18. So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his 
sons' wives with him. 

19. All animals, all creeping things, everything that 
moves on the earth, according to their species went out 
with him from the ark. 

The Priestly Writer's interest in creeping, 
crawling, and swarming creatures is truly aston- 
ishing. His too frequent allusions to these disa- 
greeable animals rather chill our interest in his 
story. One would suppose him to have been an 
entomologist in love with his darling science, and 
more concerned in the fate of bugs than of men. 
Immediately on the exit from the ark follows 
God's covenant with Noah. 

Chapter ix. i. Then Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, 
ard said unto them, " Be fruitful and multiply and replenish 
the earth." 

* Bacon (" Hebraica," viii. 85) conjectures that, according to the 
Jehovist, Noah had forty-seven days for building the ark and 
seven days for collecting the animals. Supposing the warning to 
have been given him on the first day of the new year, the flood 
would have begun on the seventeenth day of the second month. ^ 
Both the forty and the seven days, however, are mere conjectures. ~ 

(352) 



Man's Relation to the Animals 

The first blessing and promise of fertility is 
here repeated. If there is anything which natu- 
ral reason and observation lead us to regard as 
the will of God, it is the eternal increase of life at 
any price. 

2. " And the fear and dread of you shall be on all wild 
animals, and all birds of heaven, and on all that with which 
the ground is animated, and on all the fish of the sea; they 
are given into your hands." 

That was not the case at first in the charming 
Paradise story of the Jehovist. There the ani- 
mals lived with man on terms of friendly intimacy, 
but they did not dread him; and the time may 
come, if man grows good enough, when their 
confidence in him may be restored. It is a sad 
fact that the most harmless animals fear man as 
their worst foe. According to the Jehovist's con- 
ception, that was not God's intention. The atti- 
tude of our Book toward the animal kingdom is 
humane and very beautiful. It presents a true 
picture of the Golden Age, which, according to 
the belief of Isaiah,* will return to earth. 

3. " All that moves and lives shall serve you for food, just 
like the green herb, I give it all to you." 

This is an entirely new permission. Up to 
this time, only herb and fruit had been permitted 
man as food, perhaps in recollection of the fact 
that man has not always been a carnivorous ani- 
mal. Although the use of animal flesh is now al- 
lowed, certain restrictions are imposed as to the 
manner in which flesh is to be prepared and con- 
sumed. 

* Is. xi. 6-8. 

*3 (353) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

4. " Only thou shalt not eat flesh with its soul, with its 
blood." 

That ancient proscription has been religiously 
observed by devout Jews to this day, hence they 
still refuse to eat meat that is not prepared by a 
Jew. The meaning of the injunction seems to be 
something like this: All nations have asked the 
question, In what does animal life consist ? The 
Hebrew had a very simple and practical answer. 
Life consists in blood; as soon as the blood is 
drained, Hfe disappears. But, as we have already 
seen, life was regarded as emanating directly 
from God. Therefore to drink blood is a kind of 
sacrilege. This feeling was strengthened by be- 
lief in blood as a means of atonement, the giving 
back to God of the Hfe He had given. If the 
blood of animals is sacred, far more sacred is the 
blood of man. 

5. " And surely your own blood will I avenge, on every 
beast will I avenge it, and on every man; on every man's 
brother will I avenge a man's life. 

6. " He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood 
be shed, since in His own image Elohim made man. 

7. " But do you be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the 
earth and replenish it." 

This is by no means the mere law of blood re- 
venge; it is also a noble assertion of the sanctity 
of human life, founded solely on the fact of man's 
creation in the likeness of God. The command 
to take the life of the murderer is not based on 
the duty of revenge and it is not laid upon the 
relatives of the murdered man. Neither can one 
say that it is founded exactly on morality and jus- 
tice, since the punishment is extended to animals 
also. The command rests rather on the religious 

(3M) 



Sacredness of Human Life 



motive of punishing sin against God, whose im- 
age the murderer destroys. Whatever our sen- 
timents may be on the subject of capital punish- 
ment, which is here plainly sanctioned, it is im- 
possible not to be impressed by our author's 
deep sense of the sanctity of human life as com- 
ing from God. This noble verse has borne 
great moral fruit, and Luther is quite right in 
saying that with this verse the foundation of all 
human society is laid. He who touches man 
touches God — a thought we can never afford to 
forget. 

8, 9, 10. Then Elohim said to Noah, and to his sons with 
him, " I, lo! I, establish My covenant with you and with 
your descendants after you, and with every living thing 
that is with you, birds and cattle and wild beasts that are 
with you, with all animals on earth that come forth from the 
ark. 

II. " And I will establish My covenant with you, so that 
no flesh shall be destroyed again by the waters of a flood; 
nor shall there be a flood again to destroy the earth." 

This covenant can scarcely be called a religious 
compact between God and man, since it includes 
the animals also. It is a mere promise on the 
part of God that such a universal deluge shall 
never return. As a rule, God's covenants are at- 
tended by some confirming sign; here it is the 
rainbow, the pledge of hope after distress, the 
most beautiful of all signs except the starry 
heavens which God showed Abraham. Many 
writers assume that this was the first time the 
rainbow had made its appearance, and some even 
suppose a change in the constitution of the at- 
mosphere; but our story does not say that the 
rainbow had never been seen before. 

(355) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge, 

12. And God said, " This is the sign of the covenant be- 
tween Me and you and every living creature which is with 
you for perpetual generations. 

13. " I have placed My bow in the clouds, and it shall be a 
sign of the covenant between Me and the earth." 

The rainbow, which Ezekiel * calls '' the ap- 
pearance of the likeness of the glory of God," is 
here described as God's bow. Jesus, the son of 
Sirach, gives a fine description of the rainbow, t 
" Look upon the rainbow, and praise Him who 
made it. Very beautiful is it in its brightness; 
it encompasses the heaven with its glorious circle 
and the hands of the Highest have bended it." 

14. 15. " And when I bring the clouds over the earth, and 
the bow appears in the clouds, then will I remember the 
covenant that is between Me and you and every living 
creature of all flesh, and never again shall the waters of a 
flood destroy all flesh. 

16. " And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I will look 
upon it to remind Myself of the perpetual covenant that is 
between Elohim and every living creature of all flesh which 
is on the earth." 



The meaning of the rainbow has never been 
so beautifully interpreted. It is born of the 
storm ; but when God sees it, it reminds Him of 
His promise never again to let the storm rise to 
a destroying Flood. Hence it is a sign and prom- 
ise that the storm is nearly at its end. Other na- 
tions have interpreted the rainbow otherwise. 
To the Hindus it was the many-colored war-bow 
of Indra.t In Greek mythology, personified as 

* Ezek. i. 28. 

I Sirach, xliii. Ii, 12; 1. 7. 

I It would appear that the Hebrews also regarded the rainbow 
as a war-bow by which God shot his arrows, the lightning, as in 

(356) 



The Rainbow 



Iris, it is the messenger of the gods, and also a 
heaven-sent sign of war and other events.* The 
Romans beHeved that the rainbow drinks up 
water from the earth, hence the saying '' bibit 
arcus, pluet hodie." t In the Edda, the rainbow 
is the heavenly bridge on which the gods walk 
and drive.J Besides these traditions many pop- 
ular superstitions cluster around the rainbow, 
such as the danger of pointing the finger at the 
rainbow, or that at the end of a rainbow hangs a 
golden key which opens a chest of treasure, or 
that gold pieces or pennies drop from the rain- 
bow to the ground.! 

17. So Elohim said to Noah, " This is the sign of the 
covenant which I have estabhshed between Me and all 
flesh which is upon the earth." 

28. And Noah Hved after the flood three hundred and 
fifty years, 

29. So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty 
years; then he died. 

This is the end of the Priestly Writer's story of 
the Flood. We see then that we actually possess 
independent and almost complete Flood narra- 
tives, carefully combined in Genesis, which can 
be separated without difficulty. The Jehovist's 
account lacked the building of the ark, the en- 
trance into and the exit from the ark. The 
Priestly Writer's account lacks scarcely any- 
thing. It is probably almost in the form in which 

Psalm vii. 12, "He hath bent His bow"; Hab. iii. 9, "Thy 
bow was made quite naked" ; Lam. ii. 4, "He hath bent His 
bow, etc." The rainbow, therefore, here acquires a new meaning. 
It is a sign of peace and reconcihation, not of war. 

* Iliad, xi. II, 27, 47. 

t Plautus, Curcul. i. 2. 

iSaem. 44. 

§ Grimm, "Deutsche Mythol." ii. 610, 611. 



(357) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

it left its author's hand. When we compare the 
Priestly Writer's document with the Jehovist's, 
we see that in spirit and conception, as well as in 
execution, they are very different. Notwith- 
standing the Priestly Writer's pecuHar dry style 
and his wearisome repetition of certain choice 
expressions, his ideas are lofty, though they are 
very cold. He tells us that Noah was a righteous 
man ; further than that, Noah remains a perfectly 
colorless character. God also is conceived in 
much the same manner. The Priestly Writer care- 
fully avoids all such anthropomorphical expres- 
sions as that God " repented," " was grieved at 
His heart," that He " shut the door after Noah," 
or was pleased with the smell of the burning sacri- 
fice. His Elohim is far removed from such hu- 
man conduct and feeling. He is above the world 
and acts more from an abstract sense of justice 
than from passion or emotion of any sort. The 
Priestly Writer is entirely consistent with his 
account of creation in deriving the Flood from 
two sources, the breaking up of the abyss and 
the opening of the windows of the firmament 
where the heavenly waters are stored. His Flood 
story is the second long narrative from his pen 
in Genesis. It is distinctly inferior in style and 
elevation to his first chapter, but it possesses 
many of the peculiarities of that chapter. It is 
written in the same dry, technical style, and ex- 
hibits the same poverty of expression shown by 
the frequent repetition of words and phrases. 
On the other hand, the Priestly Writer's style is 
very workmanlike. He makes a telHng use of 
mathematics, which gives quite a substantial air 
to his story. In regard to the conflicting esti- 

' (358) ' 



Comparison of Two Accounts 

mates of the duration of the Flood, as we have 
seen, the Priestly Writer asserts that the Flood 
lasted from the seventeenth day of the second 
month of one year to the twenty-seventh day of 
the second month of the following year, in any 
case a full solar year of three hundred and sixty- 
five days, and possibly a few days longer. The 
Jehovist, however, calculates very differently. 
He allows seven days to elapse after the warning 
to collect the animals, and then forty days of con- 
tinuous rain. At the end of the forty days Noah 
sent out the raven; after seven days more, the 
dove the first time. After seven days more he 
sent out the dove the second time, which re- 
turned with the olive leaf. After seven days 
more he sent the dove the third time. Accord- 
ing to the Jehovist's computation, therefore, the 
Flood actually lasted for 40 + 21 =61 days, or, 
with the addition of the seven days before the 
rain began, 68 days in all* In this computation, 
as well as in many other particulars, the Jehovist 
follows the Babylonian cuneiform account much 
more closely than does the Priestly Writer. His 
story is more deeply penetrated with moral feel- 
ing than the Priestly Writer's. His whole nar- 
rative moves less in the plane of the supernatural 
and he gives us, in a fresh and genuine form, the 
old traditions into which the Priestly Writer reads 
many of the reflections of a later age. I remind 
you merely of the episode of the birds, the build- 
ing of the altar, the sweet-smelling sacrifice, the 

* From the brief period of time allowed to elapse in the Je- 
hovist's narrative between God's warning and the beginning of 
the P'lood, the structure of the ark must have been much more 
simple. 

(359) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

more human conception of Jahveh, etc. We 
must also remember that the Redactor has dealt 
more freely with the Jehovist's narrative, from 
which he has eliminated several important fea- 
tures. Scholars, with scarcely an exception, re- 
gard the Jehovist's account as much the older of 
the two. Whether the Priestly Writer had any 
other independent Hebrew history before him, or 
whether he depended solely on the Jehovist's 
narrative for his knowledge of the Flood is a 
critical question I do not feel called upon to dis- 
cuss here. It is certain that the Priestly Writer's 
description of the ark contains several elements 
not to be found at present elsewhere, but we 
must remember that the greater portion of the 
Jehovist's description of the ark has perished. 

We come now to the important question of the 
origin and the diffusion of the Flood Tradition. 
As you are aware, this is one of the most widely 
disseminated of human beliefs, and yet it is by no 
means universal, as many persons pretend. It 
would be impossible and undesirable for me to 
trace exhaustively the history of the Flood tradi- 
tion among all the peoples which possess it.* 
Many of their tales and legends have no ascer- 
tainable connection with our story. The plan I 
shall pursue is to examine with care the ancient 
flood narratives of the great cultured nations of 
antiquity, with the hope of discovering their 
origin, and to treat more superficially the legends 
or reminiscences of floods among primitive races 
in modern times. The literature to be examined 
is considerable, but not overwhelmingly great. 

* I refer the reader to the table on the Flood tradition at the end 
of this volume. 

(36^) 



Flood Traditions 



Among the great literary nations of the old 
world, only the Hebrews, the Hindus, the Baby- 
lonians and the Greeks have preserved unmistak- 
able traditions of a deluge. The Persians have 
a similar story which is worth noticing. The 
Phoenicians may very well have possessed an 
ancient native deluge story, but their literature 
has almost altogether perished, and what re- 
mains of it has come down to us through so many 
hands that its authenticity is dubious. Represen- 
tations of the ark found in Vetulonia (Italy) 
and in Sardinia, supposed to be the work of 




LITTLE NOAh'S ARK FOUND IN VETULONIA 

Phoenician artists, one of which dates from the 
seventh century B.C., make it easy to believe 
that the Phoenicians were acquainted with the 
traditions of a deluge.* There are also a few old 
Germanic and Slavonic flood legends of some an- 
tiquity; but of all the traditions we possess, by far 
the most important and original is the double tra- 
dition of Babylonia and Israel. Let us begin 
with the Greeks. 

The Greek flood stories are interesting, but 
they have not the importance that many writers 

* Usener, " Sintflutsagen," 248-251. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

have assigned them; first, because they are not 
related by any very ancient Greek writer, and 
secondly because they never expanded into a 
true epic. Homer * and Hesiod make no men- 
tion of them, and from this circumstance we 
may infer that flood legends were not current in 
their day, as Hesiod in particular would have 
been glad to tell such a story if he had known it.f 
Even Herodotus (b.c. 484) makes no mention 
of a flood. Moreover, we do not find among 
the Greeks any one authoritative, stereotyped 
form of flood narrative, such as we should find 
if the legend rested on an old national tradition. 
Different writers treat the subject differently, 
shifting the scene of the Flood and adding fea- 
tures taken from here or there as they please. 
The earliest Greek author, so far as I know, to 
allude to the Flood, is the famous Theban poet 
Pindar (born about 522 B.C.), who. in his Ninth 
Olympian Ode describes Deucalion and Pyrrha 
descending from Mount Parnassus and creating 
a new race of men out of stones. He mentions 
this as a well-known story, and merely adds, 
*' Truly men say that once a mighty water swept 
over the dark earth, but by the craft of Zeus an 
ebb suddenly drew off the flood." X The first 
Greek writer who related the whole story of the 
Flood at length is ApoUodorus, the Attic gram- 

* Homer, "Iliad," 11. 384, mentions destructive rains sent by- 
Zeus, but describes no flood. 

f The story of the Flood would have fitted so perfectly with 
Hesiod's scheme of the Four Ages of the world that in this case 
the argumentuin e silentio may be safely applied. In Hesiod's 
lost " Catalogue of Women " the line of Greek heroes seems to 
have been derived from Deucalion and Pyrrha. This document, 
however, is hardly older than 600 B.C. 

\ E, Myers* translation. 

(362) 



Greek Traditions 



marian (flor. circa 140 B.C.), in his Bibliotheca 
or mythology of Greece. Earlier writers, how- 
ever, allude to it. 

Among the Greeks the Flood legend took two 
distinct forms. The first and perhaps the older 
was connected with Ogyges,* the most ancient 
king of Boeotia, though some say of Attica. In 
his reign the waters of Lake Copais rose above 
their banks and inundated the whole valley of 
Boeotia. Late writers, like Pausanias (who 
wrote his " Itinerary of Greece " under Marcus 
Aurelius), assert that the waters rose up to heav- 
en, and Dionysius Nonus (a.d. 300) adds that 
Ogyges escaped in a vessel.f Little, however, is 
told of this flood; apparently it was eclipsed by 
the more popular story of Deucalion. As it is 
related only by late writers, and as no worship 
was accorded Ogyges in Greece, we may pre- 
sume that it came to Greece from abroad, per- 
haps from Asia Minor through Phoenician set- 
tlers. 

By far the more popular Greek Flood story 
was that of Deucalion and Pyrrha, to which we 
find several allusions in Plato. In '' The 
Laws " X Plato makes the Athenian stranger ask 
Cleinias, *' Do you believe that there is any truth 

*The Scholiast on Plato's "Timaeus," 22a, states expressly that 
Ogyges' flood occurred first and Deucalion's afterward. Although 
Ogyges is an ancient figure in Greek mythology, descriptions of 
this flood, which are very meagre, are preserved only in late 
writers like Julius Africanus, Dionysius Nonus, Varro, and 
Eusebius. Movers derived his name from the Phoenicians ; 
Preller, Buttmann, and others regard it as a reduplication of the 
root 0/ceavos, and regard Ogyges as the personification of the 
ocean. 

f Pausanias, ix. 5, i. 

X Laws, iii. 677. 



(363) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

in the ancient traditions ? " '' What traditions ? " 
says Cleinias. " The traditions about the many- 
destructions of mankind which have been oc- 
casioned by deluges and disease, and in many 
other ways, and of the preservation of a rem- 
nant? " From the way Plato speaks of " many 
destructions " and of '' deluges," it would not 
seem that any one universal deluge was known 
to him. 

In the ''Timaeus " * there is a very interesting 
passage. Solon is telling an Egyptian priest 
about the deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but 
the Egyptian ridicules him and tells Solon that 
the Greeks are but children, and know nothing 
of the old traditions. Then he goes on to speak 
in a most rational way about the Flood and other 
catastrophes, and assures Solon that no such 
deluge has visited Egypt for the reason that rain 
does not fall there, though he admits that many 
floods have occurred in other parts of the world. 
He ends by telling the famous story of the Island 
of Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean, which by rea- 
son of an earthquake and flood disappeared in 
one day. This story is doubly interesting ; first, 
as affording additional proof that no Flood legend 
existed in Egypt; and secondly, on account of 
the story of the destruction of Atlantis. There 
will always be persons who pin their faith to this 
ancient myth. It is very tempting to imagine 
that the terrible seismic disturbance that de- 
troyed this island launched a frightful tidal wave, 
which, sweeping over the old world, actually 
caused the deluge. Unfortunately, low-lying 
Egypt would have been the first to suffer, but 

* " Timaeus," 22. 

(364) 



Flexibility of Greek Flood Legend 

according to the very story on which the Atlantis 
myth rests, Egypt did not suffer at all. 

The expanded form of the Deucalion Flood 
legend is given by Apollodorus as follows : 

Zeus wished to destroy the men of the bronze age. 
Deucalion, by the advice of his father, Prometheus, built 
a chest, placed provisions in it, and entered it with his wife, 
Pyrrha. Zeus then let great floods of rain stream down 
from heaven, which overwhelmed the greater part of 
Greece, to such an extent, indeed, that all men were de- 
stroyed except a few who had taken refuge on the nearest 
high mountains. At that time it also happened that the 
mountains in eastern Thessaly split, and the whole land 
as far as the Isthmus became a sea. But Deucalion was 
driven in his chest through the sea for nine days and nights, 
until he landed on Parnassus; and there, when the rain 
ceased, he disembarked and offered sacrifice to Zeus, who 
had guided his voyage. Then Zeus sent Hermes to him 
and incited him to express a wish. He supplicated off- 
spring. According to the command of Zeus, he took up 
stones and threw them over his head. And the stones 
thrown by Deucalion became men, and those (thrown) by 
Pyrrha became women. From this came the expression 
laoi, for people or nations, because they sprang from stones 
(laoi)^ 

. Ovid's t elaborate description of the great del- 
uge, which impHes an eadier poetic model, and 
Horace's i sarcastic allusion to it, are too famiHar 
to be recounted. 

What astonishes us most in the Greek Flood 
legend is its flexibility. Not only are three dis- 
tinct deluges mentioned, § but even in the most 
popular story of Deucalion many different 
causes of the flood are given. According to 
Apollodorus and others, the flood was sent to 
punish the impiety of the men of the bronze age. 

* Apollodorus i. 7, 2. 

t Ovid's "Metam." i. 288, fif. 

t Horace's Odes, 8, 2-5. 

§1. The flood of Ogyges. 2. Of Deucalion. 3. OfDardanos. 

.1 « 

(365) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

According to Ovid and others, men sprung from 
giants' blood, or the impiety of Lycaon, or the 
Titans' attack on Dionysos, had awakened the 
wrath of Zeus. The scene of the catastrophe 
and the landing place of Deucalion and Pyrrha 
are also constantly shifted. Locris, Argos, 
Sicily, Megara, Thessaly, Dodona, Cos, Rhodes, 
and Crete,* all claim the honor of providing asy- 
lum for the survivors and of being the birthplace 
of the new humanity. In one respect this is very 
natural. Deucalion was regarded as the ancestor 
of the Greek people, and in a country containing 
so many sharp political divisions, we are not sur- 
prised that each locaHty tried to prove the legit- 
imacy of its birthright by tracing its descent from 
Deucalion. This in itself indicates that the Flood 
story was not without influence in Greece, but 
the very fluidity of the tradition proves that it 
possessed no early or authoritative poetic form. 
The fact that the Flood story was unknown to 
Homer and Hesiod makes us almost certain that 
it was not a primitive Greek tradition. We must 
therefore assume that it was elaborated on Greek 
soil between the period of the Hesiodic poems 
and 600 B.C., or else we must believe that in the 
course of these centuries the Flood tradition 
came to Greece from some people that pos- 
sessed it. Usener,t whose recent investigation 
of the problem is by far the best we possess, ar- 
gues for the native origin of both the Greek and 
the Hindu Flood legend, but his arguments do 
not seem to me conclusive. In the earliest detailed 
Greek Flood story, that of Apollodorus, the men- 

* See Flood table, Appendix II. 
f " Die Sintflutsagen," Bonn, 1899. 

(366) 



Origin of Greek Legend 



tion of a '' chest " seems to point directly to 
Genesis. Several other features of our Flood, 
however, such as the collection of the animals, 
the sending of the birds, etc., are entirely absent, 
and it is right to add that the later Greek Flood 
legends, such as Ovid's and the '' De Dea Syra " 
ascribed to Lucian, are much more Semitic than 
the descriptions of earlier writers. Lucian intro- 
duces new embellishments, plainly of Eastern ori- 
gin, such as the breaking up of the great deep 
and the preservation of certain animals. Plu- 
tarch, I believe, first mentions the episode of the 
birds. He informs us that " a dove released by 
Deucalion from his chest was a sign to him of 
the duration of the storm when she returned to 
him for protection, and of the appearance of fair 
weather when she flew away." * We happen to 
know through Charon of Lampsacus that the 
dove which played so great a part in Greek myth- 
ology as the sacred bird of Aphrodite, was intro- 
duced into Greece as late as 492 B.C. , This cir- 
cumstance shows us how quickly foreign myths 
were naturalized on Greek soil, but it is not a lit- 
tle curious that the dove, the bird of Astarte,j 
should come to Greece again from the East, this 
time in Noah's ark.f I shall have something 
further to say of the origin of the Greek Flood 
myth in connection with the origin of the Flood 
tradition in general. Here I will simply state 
that after examining Usener's skilful argument I 
am still of the opinion that the Greek Flood 
legend is part of the great cycle of the Babylonian 
tradition. 

* Plutarch, ' ' De Soil. Anim. " xiii. , p. 968 f . Quoted by Usener. 
f See Usener, op. cit. p. 254. 



(367) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

We pass now to India. Here we find one 
short, isolated tradition of the Flood, preserved 
in three forms which agree with one another in 
essential features. The oldest and simplest form 
of this tradition is found in the Satapatha Brah- 
mana; * another more elaborate version is found 
in the long epic poem, Mahabharata,t and in a 
still later and a more fantastic form in the poem 
called Bhagavata Purana.J The story in the 
Satapatha Brahmana runs as follows : 

In the morning they brought to Manu water, just as now 
also they [are wont to] bring [water] for washing the 
hands. When he was washing himself, a fish came into his 
hands. 

It spake to him the word, " Rear me, I will save thee." 
" Wherefrom wilt thou save me?" "A flood will carry 
away all these creatures. From that I will save thee." 
"How am I to rear thee?" 

It said, " As long as we are small there is great destruc- 
tion for us: fish devours fish. Thou wilt first keep me in a 
jar. When I outgrow that, thou wilt dig a pit, and keep 
me in it. When I outgrow that, thou wilt take me down 
to the sea, for then I shall be beyond destruction." 

It soon became a ghasha [large fish]. Thereupon it 
said, " In such and such a year the flood will come. Thou 
shalt then attend to me [i.e., to my advice] by preparing 
a ship, and when the flood has risen thou shalt enter into 
the ship and I will save thee from it." 

After he had reared it in this way, he took it down to the 
sea. And in the same year which the fish had indicated to 
him he attended [to the advice of the fish] by preparing a 
ship, and when the flood had risen he entered into the ship. 
The fish then swam up to him, and to its horn he tied the 
rope of the ship, and by that means he passed swiftly up 
to yonder northern mountain. 

It then said, " I have saved thee. Fasten the ship to 
a tree, but let not the waters cut thee off whilst thou art on 
the mountain. As the water subsides thou mayest gradu- 

* Not later than 500 B.C., and probably much older, 
fi. 12746-12804 ; date of poem from 500 B.C. to 500 A.D., 
Hopkins. 
ifBurnouf's ed., ii. 177,191. Dateof poem from 500-1500 A.D. 

(368) 



Hindu Flood Legend 



ally descend." Accordingly he gradually descended, and 
hence that slope of the northern mountain is called Manu's 
Descent. The flood then swept away all these creatures 
and Manu alone remained here.* 

After the flood was ended, Manu offered sac- 
rifice. Out of the sacrifice came a young woman, 
from whom the present race issued. 

In this earHest version, which is marked by so- 
briety, the name of the fish god is not mentioned. 
The Mahabharata calls him Brahma, and in the 
Purana the fish becomes one of the ten incarna- 
tions of Vishnu. In the Mahabharata, Brahma 
tells Manu to take all kinds of seed with him, and 
in the Purana, Vishnu says to Satyvsata,t '' In 
seven days the three worlds will be submerged by 
an ocean of destruction." These touches appear 
to be taken directly from the Babylonian tradi- 
tion. 

As long ago as the keen-sighted Eugene Bur- 
nouf $ it was suspected that this Hindu story was 
of Semitic origin. Burnouf showed, first, that this 
legend does not occur in the Vedas; secondly, 
that it is opposed to the periodic destructions of 
the world, which is a fundamental dogma of 
Hindu beHef ; and thirdly, that there is no other 
mention in Hindu mythology of the worship of a 
fish. On the other hand, in the Babylonian pan- 
theon the fish god is a very familiar figure. In 
particular we remember that in Berosus, Oannes, 
who gave warning of the coming flood, is de- 
scribed as combining the forms of fish and man.§ 

* "Satapatha Brahmana," i. 8, i, i-6. 

f King of the Daras, or fishermen, substituted in this version 
for Manu. 

if Pref. of third vol. of his ed., "Vishnu Purana." Murray, 
1840. Trubner, 1864. 

§Syncenus' "Chron." in Euseb., Cory's "Fragm.," 30-31. 



24 



(369) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

In the epic poem of Izdubar it is Ea, god of the 
deep, who warns Sit-napistim that the flood is 
coming, and advises him to make a ship to save 
himself and the seed of life. 

It may therefore be regarded as probable that 
the Hindu Flood story was borrowed directly or 
indirectly from Babylonia. In spite of the objec- 
tions of Weber,^ Roth,t and Max Muller,^ this 
view has steadily gained ground, § and, as Ihering 
justly remarks, "All the evidence that I have pro- 
duced respecting the influence of the Babylo- 
nians upon the Indians may perhaps contribute 
to secure a more favorable reception of his 
(Burnouf's) views." || 

Dr. Hopkins, in his learned and cautious " Re- 
ligions of India," T[ alludes to the supposition 
that the Hindu story of the Flood was derived 
from Babylonia as an '' unnecessary though ad- 
missible hypothesis, as the tale is old enough to 
warrant the belief in its indigenous origin." In 
saying this Dr. Hopkins assumes that a passage 
in the Atharva Veda ** refers to the story of 
Manu's Flood, which would make the Hindu tra- 
dition somewhat older than we have supposed. 
This passage, however, does not mention either 
Manu or the Flood. It speaks of '' a golden ship 
with golden tackle, which glided down on the 
peak of the Himavant," and Bloomfield, the 



* " Indische Studien," i. 161-232. 

•f Milnchner " Gelehrte Anz.," 1849, Pt- 26 f,, 1850, pt. 72. 
X " Essays," i. 141. 

§ " With most investigators I regard this narrative as a 
Semitic loan." Oldenburg, " Relig. des Vedas," 276, An. 3. 
II " Evol. of Aryan," 184. 
•|[ Ginn, 1895, p. 160. 
** xix. 39, 7, 8. 

(370) 



Persian Flood Legend 



translator,* admits that the passage may have 
nothing to do with the Flood, although he finds 
the suggestion attractive. More to the point is 
the passage from the Kathaka cited by A. 
Weber, t which reads, "The waters wiped out 
this [existing world], Manu alone remained." 
Here the Flood seems to be alluded to in unmis- 
takable terms. 

It only remains for us to cast a glance at the 
literature of Persia. There are, to my knowl- 
edge, but two passages in the sacred writings of 
the Zoroastrians which can be construed into al- 
lusions to a flood, and neither of them is conclu- 
sive. You may remember the passage in the 
Zend Avesta in which Ahura Mazda warns Yima, 
the good shepherd, of a series of frightful winters 
which are about to devastate the earth. He 
therefore commands Yima to make a " Vara," an 
underground abode, and to collect there the seed 
of all good animals and birds for safe keeping. 

" O fair Yima, . . . upon the material world the evil 
winters are about to fall that shall bring the fierce deadly 
frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to 
fall that shall make snow flakes even an ardvi [comment, 
fourteen fingers] deep on the highest tops of the moun- 
tains." 

Then follows a description of the enclosure, 
which I omit. 

" Thither shalt thou bring the seeds of every kind of tree 
. . . thither shalt thou bring the seeds of every kind of 
fruit. All these seeds shalt thou bring, two of every kind 
to be kept inexhaustible there." t 

* " Sacred Books of the East," xlii. pp. 6, 679. 
f Weber in Kuhn's und Schleicher's " Beitragen," 4, 288, and' 
in " Streifen," i. 11, Anm. 3. 
X Vendidad, Fargard ii. 



(371: 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

The curious feature of this narrative, which 
few writers have noticed, is that it does not de- 
scribe a catastrophe which has taken place, but 
contains a warning of a visitation yet to come. 
At most we have here a general destruction, 
but no flood. The command to preserve seed re- 
minds us a little of the Babylonian story, the men- 
tion of two of each species is in the style of the 
Priestly Writer ; but for the rest, the narrative is 
very different from either Genesis or the Baby- 
lonian Flood legend. Yima's underground 
house preserves not only Yima and his family 
and the animals, but the plants as well, and the 
specimens of all the human race. The utmost 
that can be said is that this may be a far-off echo 
of the Babylonian or the BibHcal Flood story 
adapted to the severe climate of Persia; or, if not 
this, then it is nothing but a reminiscence of ex- 
ceptionally cold winters during which human be- 
ings kept themselves alive by burrowing in the 
earth. 

The second passage, found in the late book 
called the '' Bundahesh," * does indeed describe a 
flood in which rain fell for ten days, every drop 
" as big as a bowl," until the waters stood the 
height of a man over the whole earth. The ob- 
ject of this flood, however, is to destroy the de- 
mons and malevolent spirits created by Angro 
Mainyu. There is no mention of men in this 
story, and neither of these judgments seems to 
have been provoked by human sin. We there- 
fore fail to find a true Flood tradition in Persia. 
We may sum up the result of our investigation 
thus far as follows : The most genuinely ancient 

*Chap. vii. 
(372) 



Original Flood Tradition 



and original tradition of a universal deluge 
known to the old world appears to be the tradi- 
tion of which our story in Genesis forms part, 
and which finds its earliest and most original ex- 
pression in Babylonia. The Egyptians and 
Arabs have no Flood legends. The Hindus have 
one tradition which probably was borrowed from 
Babylonia. The Persian story of the terrible 
winters can hardly be regarded as a Flood legend, 
and in Greece the late date and the comparative 
unimportance of the Flood tradition indicate that 
it was not of native origin, but that it came to 
Greece through some Semitic source. 



(373) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Eighteen: 
The Flood Traditions of Babylon 

IN our last chapter we discussed the traditions 
of the Flood preserved by several great civi- 
hzed nations of antiquity. We found that the 
Egyptians had no native Flood legend. The Per- 
sian legend at most preserved an echo of a gen- 
eral destruction which was to be a series of severe 
winters, not a flood of waters. The Greeks pos- 
sessed two principal Flood stories, neither of 
which is related by any Greek writer before Pin- 
dar. They do not appear, therefore, to have 
formed part of a primitive Greek tradition. The 
Hindus possessed one peculiar isolated Flood 
tradition in three forms, the oldest and simplest 
version of which is contained in the Satapatha 
Brahmana, which may date from 900 B.C. The 
majority of scholars believe that this tradition 
had a Babylonian origin. The result of our 
investigation seemed to lead to the conclusion 
that the Semitic tradition represented by the 
Babylonian and the Hebrew Flood narratives 
is not only the oldest tradition, but the most 
original, and it is possible that all the Flood tradi- 
tions of the ancient world arose from this source, 
mingled with native myths and recollections of 
local deluges occurring in different places at dif- 
ferent times. This is a point, however, on which 

(374) 



Discovery of Cuneiform Accounts 

I do not insist. I turn now to the Flood tradition 
of Babylonia. For a long time we have possessed 
some knowledge of the Babylonian Flood legend, 
through Berosus, a Babylonian priest, who wrote 
in Greek. But of late years our knowledge has 
been materially increased by the cuneiform tab- 
lets of the poem of Izdubar. This work was dis- 
covered by George Smith in Nineveh, and was 
translated by Mr. Smith and given to the world 
in 1872.* Mr. Smith's copies were defective and 
his translation was far from perfect, and yet his 
discovery marks an epoch in the study of the 
Bible. Since then other copies of the Izdubar 
epic have been found, unfortunately also imper- 
fect and mutilated. Professor Paul Haupt, of 
Johns Hopkins University, has carefully col- 
lected all, or almost all,t the known fragments 
of this ancient poem, which he has pubhshed in 
two volumes. J Dr. Haupt's text is accepted by 
all scholars as authoritative, and on it all recent 
translations are based. Among the best trans- 
lations are Jeremias',§ Jensen's,! and Zimmern's 
in Gunkel's fascinating work.l^ Dr. Jastrow has 
also made an original translation of parts of this 
poem for his '' Religions of Babylonia." In what 
follows I shall refer to these four translations. 

Let us first consider the tradition preserved by 
Berosus. Berosus was a priest of the god Bel in 
Babylon during and after the lifetime of Alex- 

* At a meeting of the Society for Biblical Archaeol., Dec. 3, 
1872. 

f See Vorrede, Jeremias' " Izdubar-Nimrod." 

i "Das Babylonische Nimrodepos," 2 vols., Leipzig, 1884,1891. 

§ "Izdubar-Nimrod," Teubner, Leipz,, 1891. 

I " Kosmol. der Babylonier," Strasburg, i8go, pp. 367-446. 

^" Schopfung und Chaos," pp. 423-428, Gottingen, 1895. 

(375) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

ander the Great. He translated a sketch of the 
history of Babylonia and Chaldea, in three vol- 
umes, which he dedicated to Antiochus Sotor 
(280-270 B.C.). The materials of this history he 
professed to derive from the ancient cuneiform 
chronicles preserved in the temple of Bel in 
which he ministered,* and there is no good rea- 
son to doubt the truth of his assertion and the 
authenticity of his history.f Most unfortunately 
by far the greater part of this priceless work has 
perished. What has come down to us is in the 
form of fragments preserved principally by late 
Greek writers, Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus 
and Apollodorus, whose writings reach us 
through Josephus, Eusebius and Syncellus. So 
it is apparent that the views put forth by Berosus 
come to us in a very roundabout manner. In 
places his statements have been so garbled as to 
seem absurd, and yet, fragmentary as his work 
is, it is of great importance. Besides the frag- 
ments we have mentioned, another short narra- 
tive bearing on the Flood has been preserved by 
Josephus and Eusebius, from the pen of Nicolaus 
of Damascus, who hved during the reign of 
Augustus.^ 

Now let us turn to Berosus' account of the del- 
uge as it is preserved in the various works I have 

*See statement of Alex. Polyh. in Cory, p. 21. 

f See Budde's " Urgeschichte," p. 474 flf. 

if The fragments of Berosus have been frequently collected by 
W. Richter, Leipzig, 1825 ; by Miiller, in his " Fragment. Hist. 
Grsec," 2 vols., Paris, 1848 ; by Cory, in his well-known "An- 
cient Fragments," London, 1832. Among the many attempts to 
establish the dates of Berosus, perhaps the most exhaustive is that 
of F. Lenormant, in his " Essai de Commentaire de Fragments 
Cosmogoniques de Berose," Paris, 1871. The best text of Be- 
rosus is found in Schoene's ed. of Eusebius, with Gutschmid's 
comments, " Eusebi Chron.," libri duo, ed. Schoene. 

■ {^) 



The Account of Berosus 



mentioned. In the second book of his history 
Berosus gave the names of the ten mythical kings 
who reigned from the beginning, the last of 
whom is Xisuthros, the Babylonian Noah, who 
was saved from the deluge. Xisuthros, there- 
fore, may be assumed to be identical with Sit- 
napistim, of whom the poem of Izdubar speaks. 
His name is believed to be a corruption of 
Khasis-adra, an inversion of the epithet bestowed 
upon Sit-napistim; it means ''very pious," or 
'' very clever." * 

The deity Kronos [i.e., Ea] appeared to him [Xisuthros] 
in a vision,f and warned him that upon the fifteenth day 
of the month Daesius there would be a flood, by which 
mankind would be destroyed. 

Daesius is the eighth month of the Grseco- 
Syrian year. As that year began in the autumn, 
Daesius would correspond roughly with June, 
and the fifteenth of Daesius would fall not far 
from the first of July, thus causing the Flood to 
occur at the very time when rivers are the lowest. 
Lenormant, therefore, conjectures that Berosus 
merely wrote " the fifteenth day of the eighth 
month," rendering into Greek the name of the 
Assyrian month Arahshamna, and Alexander, 
forgetting that the Babylonian year began in the 
spring, substituted the name of the eighth month 
with which he was acquainted, thus changing the 
beginning of the Flood from November to the 
latter part of June.$ I shall show, later, however, 

* Jastrow, " Religion of Baby.," p. 505, note 3. Doubted by 
some. 

f We find here the oft-recurring intercourse between gods and 
men by dreams, of which the poem of Izdubar gives us so many 
examples. 

X " Beginnings of Hist.," 413. 



(377) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

that Berosus may have had a reason for stating 
that the Flood occurred at a time of year when 
it could not have been caused by the overflow of 
the rivers. We are not told how long before the 
Flood the warning was given. 

He [Kronos, or Ea] therefore enjoined him [Xisuthros] 
to write a history of the beginning, middle, and end of all 
things, and to bury it in the city of the sun at Sippara.* 

We see from this that the Babylonians thought 
of the Flood as occurring comparatively late, at 
least after the discovery of writing and history, 
and after the founding of cities. I have called 
attention before to the inability of the Babylo- 
nians to go behind their own civilization, which is 
one proof of its great antiquity. 

And to build a vessel, to take into it his friends and 
relatives, and to convey on board everything necessary to 
sustain life, together with all the different animals, both 
birds and quadrupeds, and to trust himself fearlessly to the 
deep. 

Although sin is not specifically mentioned as 
the cause of the deluge, yet, from the allusion at 
the end of the poem to the voice of the departed 
Xisuthros exhorting his friends to show respect 
to the gods, it would appear that the Flood was 
sent to punish men for their impiety. In the 
cuneiform account, this is brought out more 
plainly. The moral and religious motive of the 
Flood, therefore, is by no means lacking.f Xisu- 

* A little above Babylon, on the left bank of the Euphrates, a 
very old city. The cuneiform account speaks of Surippak, whose 
site is unknown. 

f See Lenormant, " Essai de Comment.," 259, and Maspero, 
*' Dawn of Civilization," 566, note 2. 

(378) 



XisuTHROs Sends Out Birds 



thros' vessel is conceived in the form of a ship 
with sails, as we should expect among a sea-far- 
ing people, not, as in our account, in the form of 
a chest. 

Having asked the deity whither he was to sail, he was 
answered, " To the gods ": upon which he offered a prayer 
for the good of mankind. 

A surprisingly beautiful touch. This Noah 
forgot to do. 

He then obeyed the divine command, and built a vessel 
five stadia in length and two in breadth.* Into this he put 
everything which he had prepared; and last of all conveyed 
into it his wife, his children, and his friends. 

Apparently a serious break occurs here, as the 
coming on of the Flood is lost. The narrative 
continues : 

After the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time 
abated, Xisuthros sent out birds from the vessel, which, not 
finding any food, nor any place whereupon they might rest 
their feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some 
days, he sent them forth a second time, and they now re- 
turned with their feet tinged with mud. He made trial a 
third time with these birds, but they returned to him no 
more; from which he judged that the surface of the earth 
had appeared above the waters. He therefore made an 
opening in the vessel, and upon looking out saw that it 
was stranded upon the top of some mountain, upon which 
he immediately quitted it with his wife, his daughter, and 
the pilot. 

The daughter and the pilot are entirely new 

* The Armenian version of Eusebius says fifteen stadia in 
length. If Lenormant is right in asserting that the Babylonian 
stadion, amtnat gagar^ contains 360 cubits, the vessel would have 
been 1,800 cubits long. Estimating the smaller Babylonian cubit 
roughly at 20 inches, we should have a vessel 3,000 feet long and 
1,200 feet broad. 



(379) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

figures. The pilot shows conclusively that Xisu- 
thros' vessel did not merely float upon the waters, 
but was navigated. 

Xisuthros then paid his adoration to the earth, and 
having constructed an altar, offered sacrifices to the gods, 
and with those who had come out of the vessel with him, 
disappeared. 

They who remained within, finding that their companions 
did not return, quitted the vessel, with many lamentations, 
and called continually on the name of Xisuthros. Him 
they saw no more, but they could distinguish his voice in 
the air, and hear him admonish them to pay due regard to 
religion; and likewise he informed them that it was on 
account of his piety that he was translated to live with the 
gods, and that his wife and daughter and the pilot had 
obtained the same honor. To this it was added that they 
should return to Babylonia, and as it was ordained, search 
for the writings at Sippara, which they were to make 
known to all mankind; moreover, that the place where they 
then were was the land of Armenia. The rest, having 
heard these words, offered sacrifices to the gods, and tak- 
ing a circuit, journeyed toward Babylonia. 

There is much in this story which reminds us 
of our narrative, along with much that is for- 
eign. The dry, colorless style bears some resem- 
blance to that of the Priestly Writer, and with 
reason, for Berosus also was a priest, and had the 
style which distinguishes priestly annalists in all 
ages and countries. His narrative is almost mon- 
otheistic, in striking contrast to the crude poly- 
theism of Izdubar, but we must remember that 
it reaches us through the hands of Church 
historians, who doubtless omitted its more ob- 
jectionable features. The piety of Xisuthros, his 
warning by Ea, the building of the ark with its 
exact dimensions, are all familiar enough. The 
sending out of the birds is even more conclusive. 
That is one of those little touches which prove 

(380) 



Points of Difference 



that we are dealing with a different form of the 
same tradition. The tingeing of the birds' feet 
with mud is an original feature preserved in no 
other tradition. The landing on a mountain in 
Armenia, the erection of an altar, and the offer- 
ing of sacrifice, also perfectly agree with our 
account. 

The chief points of difference are the omis- 
sion of three sons, who were not needed by 
Berosus, as Xisuthros was accompanied by 
friends, and the introduction of a daughter and 
the pilot, with all that the latter implies. The 
most striking contrast with Genesis is the final 
fate of Xisuthros, which is preserved in both 
forms of the Babylonian tradition. The Baby- 
lonian hero does not die at all. In company with 
his wife and his pilot * he escapes death by trans- 
lation. In Berosus his final fate is left uncertain. 
He simply disappears. The other occupants of 
the ark see him no more, and only hear his voice 
for a short time in the air. In Izdubar, however, 
Sit-napistim is translated to the Island of the 
Blessed; this forms an important episode of the 
poem, but the circumstance that Berosus repre- 
sents the pilot as translated with him is an indica- 
tion that Berosus' narrative originally ended in 
the same way. This bold incident seems to be 
lacking in the Bible. Noah lives for three hun- 
dred and fifty years after the Flood, and yields to 
death at last. But a similar story is told of an 
earlier patriarch. Enoch did not die, he was 
translated, Hke Xisuthros, without tasting death, 
and for the same reason — he was a righteous man. 
** And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, 

* In Berosus, also his daughter. 



(381) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

for God took him." * In one Greek version of 
the Flood DeucaHon is said to have been trans- 
lated to heaven, where he became the sign of 
Aquarius. t It is not impossible that the same 
fate was at one time ascribed to Noah. The name 
of Berosus' hero, Xisuthros, as Jastrow points 
out, is believed to be a corruption of Khasis-adra, 
which means '' exceedingly pious." Now Noah is 
described in almost precisely the same terms. In 
the ninth verse of the sixth chapter of Genesis 
we read, " Noah was a man sadditt-tamtn [i. e., 
" perfectly just," or '* very pious "] among his 
contemporaries." Even more significant are the 
following words, '' Noah walked with God." We 
turn back to the story of Enoch, who was trans- 
lated like Xisuthros, and we read, '' Enoch 
walked with God, and he disappeared, for God 
had taken him away " (Gen. v. 24). To " walk 
with God " in olden times meant something more 
than a pious, blameless life. It implied such per- 
sonal association with the Deity as Adam en- 
joyed in Paradise. Hence it is by no means im- 
possible that in the older forms of the Hebrew 
tradition Noah was translated like Xisuthros and 
Enoch. Why this distinction was afterward 
transferred from Noah to Enoch, of whom we 
know so little, may yet be discovered. 
The story concludes thus : 

The vessel, being thus stranded in Armenia, some part 
of it yet remains in theCorcyrsean| mountains of Armenia; 
and the people scrape ofif the bitumen with which it was 
outwardly coated, and make use of it by way of an alexi- 

■* Gen. V. 24. 
f Ampel. lib. Memor. 2. 

f The Armenian version has Corduarum montibus ; i.e., 
Kurdish mountains. 

(382) 



Ark in Armenia 



pharmic and an amulet. And when they returned to Baby- 
lon, and had found the writings at Sippara, they built cities 
and erected temples, and Babylon was thus inhabited again. 

Berosus, if this passage comes directly from 
his pen, also regarded Armenia as the landing 
place after the Flood. He alludes to an old pop- 
ular belief of his time when he says that parts of 
the ark were visible in the Kurdish mountains. 
This statement is important, as it supports the 
statement of Genesis that the ark grounded on a 
mountain of Ararat. It also indicates that, ac- 
cording to the tradition used by Berosus, the 
Flood arose in the south and passed to the north 
and west against the current of the rivers Tigris 
and Euphrates. On the other hand, no argu- 
ment can be based on this passage for Armenia 
as the original home of the Babylonian and He- 
brew peoples. The legend does not place the 
Flood in the period of migrations, but much 
later, in an age of cities, arts and literature. Al- 
though the occupants of the ship are driven to 
Armenia they do not remain there, but return at 
once to Babylonia. Berosus tells us that the 
Flood was sent expressly for the destruction of 
mankind, and though in the fragments we pos- 
sess we are not told that it was a universal deluge, 
yet from the fact that the high mountains of 
Kurdistan are represented as covered, the Flood 
was evidently conceived much as in Genesis. 
Abydenus, in Syncellus,* relates the story in 
about the same language, though more briefly. 

There is one other point to which I want to 
call attention. Shortly before the Flood narra- 
tive, Berosus tells a singular story of seven fish- 

* Cory's " Fragments," 32, 33. 



(383) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

men, or fish-gods, who arose from the Sea of 
Babylon, i. e., the Persian Gulf, and who taught 
the people language and writing, agriculture 
and the building of towns and temples. And 
what the first of these deities laid down the rest 
explained in detail* This tradition, as Dunckerf 
conjectures, can hardly have any other meaning 
than that culture, civilization and the art of writ- 
ing came to the Chaldeans from the south, from 
the region of the Persian Gulf. The sevenfold 
revelation may mean seven sacred books, of 
which the later explain the first. We have no- 
ticed that Berosus, in his Flood story, attaches 
great importance to certain sacred writings 
which existed before the Flood, and which Xisu- 
thros was commanded to conceal in Sippara, and 
which those who were saved from the Flood were 
commanded to recover. Pliny J also tells us that 
the sacred writings of the Chaldeans were kept 
at Sippara. 

I turn now from the account of Berosus to the 
cuneiform account contained in the poem of Iz- 
dubar. Every one sensitive to the power of 
words will feel the difference at once. Berosus' 
narrative is what it purports to be, a prosaic 
chronicle preserved by priests. It is a dry story 
from which all picturesque and emotional ele- 
ments have been eliminated. In this respect 
it reminds us of our Priestly Writer's docu- 

* This is not unlike the ancient Chinese legend of the origin of 
the Yi-King, in which it is said that a dragon-horse rose from the 
Yellow River bearing on his back the signs of the most ancient 
Chinese script. See, Chantepie de la Saussaye, " Religions-Ge- 
schichte," I. 51, 

f " GeschichtedesAlterthums,"Duncker, 5te Aufl., i. 236, 237. 

i Pliny, " Nat. Hist.," 6, 30. 

(384) ' ~ 



The Two Babylonian Traditions 

ment, just as the cuneiform poem reminds us 
strikingly of the Jehovist's narrative. It is 
tempting to suppose that our two writers had 
these two forms of the Babylonian tradition 
before them, and that while the Priestly Writer 
preferred the sober history afterward trans- 
lated by the priest Berosus, the Jehovist at- 
tached himself to the more congenial, poetic 
narrative of Izdubar. The attempt to es- 
tablish this point has been made by the Dutch- 
man Kosters,* and according to Dillmann f it 
has utterly failed. I therefore resign that idea, 
calling attention to the fact that our inability to 
attach either of our narratives directly to either 
of the Babylonian narratives is another argu- 
ment against supposing that our tradition was 
borrowed directly from Babylon at a late period. 
It is, however, interesting to note that the Baby- 
lonians had two distinct Flood traditions, and that 
the Jehovist at all events followed the cuneiform 
account much more closely than did the Priestly 
Writer, although both writers must have been 
acquainted with the tradition embodied in Izdu- 
bar. It is difficult to say which of the two Baby- 
lonian accounts represents the older form of the 
tradition, except that on general principles 
poetry is older than prose. But on the other 
hand, no one would hesitate to affirm that in its 
present form the Flood story of Izdubar is de- 
cidedly the older, as it is genuine epic poetry 
and occurs in a poem which is believed to date 
from at least 2000 B.c.-t It is true, the episode 

*" Theologisch Tijdeschrift," Leyden, xix. 335 ff. 

f " Gen.," i. 263. 

iBoscawen, " The Bible and the Monuments," p. 73. 

25 (385) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of the deluge is plainly interpolated into the 
poem of Izdubar, but there is no reason to sup- 
pose it to be later than other portions of that 
ancient patchwork of verse. On the contrary, 
the epic wealth of diction and fantasy which dis- 
tinguishes the Flood narrative may well point to 
an earlier date of composition.* The Flood story 
forms nearly three-quarters of the eleventh tablet 
of the epic. You will recaU the situation. Izdu- 
bar, in search of the Tree of Life, has reached at 
last the Island of the Blessed. He is conversing 
with Sit-napistim,t who holds out to him no hope 
of attaining the eternal youth he desires. Then 
Izdubar asks Sit-napistim how he managed to 
escape the mortal fate which is common to all 
men, and in reply Sit-napistim tells Izdubar the 
story of his marvellous deliverance and transla- 
tion. 

"Izdubar, I will tell you the secret, and will confide to you 
the decision of the gods. The city Surippak X which you 
know, on the banks of the Euphrates, the same city was 
[already] old§ when the gods were minded to send a flood 
upon it — the great gods." 

Primarily, then, the Flood was intended to ac- 
count for the destruction of this one city, a fact 
carefully to be borne in mind. 

" [They took counsel?] their father, Anu: their judge, the 
hero, Bel; their guide (?), Ninib; | their chief, En-nugi. 

* See Jeremias' " Izdubar-Nimrod," p. 13. 

f Sit-napistim is interpreted " the escaped, the rescued." Jen- 
sen, "Cosmol.," 384, 385. 

J " Unknown," Jastrow, 496. Jensen tries to identify it with 
Berosus' Larancha, " Kos der Bab.," 387; Frd. Delitzsch, with 
Larak, " Paradies," 224. 

^ Jastrow, " corrupt ; " Zimmern's conjecture. 

II Or Nin-girsu, warrior of Bel, a solar deity. 

(386) 



Ea's Warning 



The lord of wisdom, Ea, spoke with them.* He told their 
resolution to the fields,— Fields! fields! hut! hut!t Fields, 
give heed! Hut, take warning!" 

It is plain that Ea, the god of humanity, does 
not share the desire of the other gods to destroy 
the human race. He therefore takes this round- 
about way of warning the people of what is com- 
ing by informing the houses and fields, so that in 
the end he may be able to tell the gods that he has 
not betrayed their counsel. He also sends the 
following vision to Sit-napistim : 

" ' Man of Surippak, son of Kidini-Marduk, t make a 
house, build a ship, save all that you can find of the seed 
of life. Let your possessions go, save life, bring seed of 
life of all kinds into the ship. The dimensions of the ship 
you build shall be measured. Its breadth shall correspond 
with its height. § Then let it go down from its moorings 
into the deep.' || 

" I paid attention, and said to Ea, my lord: . . . 'My 
lord, what you have commanded I will hold in honor and 
carry out [but what] shall I answer to the town, the people, 
and the elders? ' " 

Sit-napistim behaves with great discretion ; the 
people will certainly inquire the cause of his build- 
ing this strange vessel and collecting the seeds of 
living beings. It will be observed that Ea has 
not yet told him the nature of the coming calam- 
ity. Ea, however, now bids him announce to the 
people in veiled and guarded terms that a flood 
is coming. 

* Jensen, " sat among them," which makes better sense. 

f Jensen, "reed hedge;" Jastrow, "reed hut;" Zimmern, 
" reed house." 

X " Client of Marduk," Jastrow. 

§ The beginning of this line is broken. Zimmern understands 
that breadth and length are equal, which would make the ship 
square. Jensen's translation is incomprehensible. 

II Zimmern, " the ocean." 



(387) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



" Ea opened his mouth and said to me, his servant, * [For 
answer] thus shall you speak to them: [because] Bel hates 
me, I will not remain in your city, will no longer lay down 
my head in Bel's place. I will descend to the sea, will take 
refuge with the god Ea, who is my lord.' " 

Bel's dominion is only on land, while Ea is the 
god of the deep. Hence by descending to the 
sea, Sit-napistim escapes from the power of Bel 
and takes refuge with Ea. Here another motive 
of the poem is apparent ; namely, to glorify Ea at 
the expense of Bel.* The next few lines are im- 
perfect and of doubtful meaning : 

" He [Bel] showers great abundance upon you . . . 
birds . . . swarm of fishes [two lines gone]." 

The meaning seems to be, Bel is deceiving you. 
While he appears to be sending you rich bless- 
ings, he is preparing to destroy you in a flood. 
The different translators, however, are not in 
agreement as to this. 

" He who sends the whirling storm [in the night, he will 
let fall on you] terrible rains. f 

"When the dawn broke [eleven lines gone], I gathered 
what was required. On the fifth day I planned its form. 
In its middle part the walls were ten Gar [120 ells (?)] t 
high, ten Gar the deck stretched out." 

The next nineteen lines, unfortunately, are 
very much mutilated : 

" I built it in six stories, divided it sevenfold [perhaps so 
that with the vessel's deck or interior it consisted of seven 
stories]. The interior I divided into nine [compartments], 
the water that was in it I poured out. I provided myself 

* Jastrow. 

f Or " Yet Samas has fixed the time when the lords of darkness 
and the evening will shower on you a destroying rain," Zimmern. 
X Jensen, 140 ells. 



(388) 



The Babylonian Ark 



with an oar [pole], put what was necessary into it. Six 
sar * of bitumen I poured over the outside, three sar of 
pitch on the inside. I kept back a sar of oil needful for the 
sacrifices. Two sar of oil the navigator secured. For 
[the temple of the gods] I slaughtered oxen, killed sheep 
every day. Vessels of sesame wine ... oil and wine 
of grapes, bowls with . . . like water I made a festival 
as on New Year's day. Salve ... I dipped my hand. 
On the seventh day was the ship ready . . . was heavy. 
. . . One brought in above and below . . . two- 
thirds of it." 

The above paragraph is Zimmern's. Jeremias 
does not attempt to translate it, on account of the 




SIT-NAPISTIM IN HIS ARK 



fragmentary condition of the text. Haupt in- 
geniously conjectures that the " two-thirds " al- 
luded to means that two-thirds of the vessel's 
depth is submerged. The description of the 
vessel is very interesting, and we can only hope 
that more of the text will be recovered. The 
Babylonian ark seems to be conceived as a great 
house boat, six stories high, resting on a flat ves- 
sel with upturned edges, like the craft still seen 
on the Euphrates.! Within, as in Noah's ark, 

* A large measure. f Jastrow, 498, 499. 

■ - ~ - — ^^^=^ 

(389) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

compartments or cells are made for the passen- 
gers and goods. The caulking with bitumen 
and pitch is strikingly like Genesis; in fact, the 
same word is used.* All this reminds us of the 
Priestly Writer's account. The seven days that 
elapsed between the warning of Ea and the be- 
ginning of the Flood are the seven days' prepara- 
tion of our Jehovist. So we see how closely the 
threads of our traditions are intertwined. 

" I filled it with everything I had. I filled it with all the 
silver I had, I filled it with all the gold I had." 

According to Ihering this is the earliest al- 
lusion in literature to silver and gold as treasures, 
or, one may say, as money. '' Babylon is the 
spot where, as may be historically proved, metal 
was first employed as money." f 

" I put into it whatever! had of the seed of life." 



The Babylonian writer, who probably had a 
wider knowledge of the number of animal spe- 
cies, thinks of saving the seed of all living animals 
rather than the animals themselves. He speaks 
of saving animals, it is true, but not with anything 
like the fulness of our Biblical account. In his 
allusion to the seed of living things he has been 
followed by both the Persian legend and the 
latest Hindu account. Berosus speaks simply of 
saving specimens of all animals. Our narrative 
contains an echo of both traditions. The Priestly 
Writer repeatedly enumerates the birds, beasts, 
and creeping things, the Jehovist mentions the 
preservation of animals, but speaks also of the 

* " Kopher" and " Kupri." 

f " Evol. of the Aryan," 202, 203. 

{390) 



Command to Shut the Door 

necessity of " keeping seed alive on the face of 
the earth." The flood which was originally in- 
tended to destroy Surippak is already taking on 
the dimensions of a universal deluge, an evident 
sign that more than one tradition is embodied in 
the poem. 

" I took into the ship my whole family and my servants, 
cattle of the field, animals of the field, hand-workmen, I 
brought them all together. Samas * gave an appointed 
sign: ' When he who sends the whirlwind sends in the 
evening a terrible rainstorm, then go into the ship and 
shut the door.' " 




■/:, SIT-NAPISTIM IN HIS ARK 

It is very curious to encounter in this place 
the incident of the closing of the door. In Izdu- 
bar the command to close the door is given by the 
god. We are not told, as in Genesis, that the god 
shut Sit-napistim in, and yet there must have 
been a tradition to this effect, for in the cylinder 

* The sun-god, judge of heaven and earth. He seems to favor 
Sit-napistim, and gives the sign by which he should know it was 
time to embark. 



(391) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



we see two deities shutting him into the ark, 
while a superior god, apparently Ea, looks ap- 
provingly on. 

"This sign was fulfilled. He who sends the whirlwind 
sent at night a fearful storm. Before day dawned I 
trembled, I was afraid to see the day." 

The season of the year is not stated, as it is in 
Genesis and Berosus. Even in Berosus the 
length of the Flood is not calculated, and in Iz- 
dubar its duration is very brief. The long con- 
tinuance of the Flood and the exact calculations 
of our Priestly Writer, therefore, are original, or 
else they rest on some tradition not yet discov- 
ered. 

" I entered the ship and shut the door. I gave the care 
of the ship to Pusur-Bel,* the pilot. The great ark f I 
entrusted to him." 

The mention of the pilot is a further indication 
that Sit-napistim's bark did not merely drift on 
the water, but sailed. A pilot is necessary for 
purposes of navigation. Once out of sight of 
land, as Ihering remarks, the landsman does not 
know how to steer his course to reach the desired 
port, hence Sit-napistim at once resigned the 
control of the ship to more experienced hands. 
To the Hebrews, who knew next to nothing of 
navigation, this thought would not occur, hence 
no mention of a pilot is made in Genesis.^ 
Pusur-Bel does not seem to be the same person 
as Arad-Ea, the pilot of the waters of death, 

* Or Pusur-Shadurabu, '* hidden or protected in the great re- 
treat." — Jastrow. 
f Jensen, " house." 
I " Evol. of Aryan," 169. 

(392) 



The Beginning of the Flood 

another proof that the Flood story is an interpo- 
lation and not originally part of the poem. 

" When the dawn broke, black clouds arose on the 
horizon of heaven. Ramman,* Nabu,f and Marduk came 
out as leaders, marched over hill and valley. The god 
UrugalJ tore the ship loose." 

The ship is conceived as already launched, and 
lying moored in the Euphrates, not resting on 
dry ground until the waters floated it, as in 
Genesis. Several of the deities mentioned in 
these verses are gods of the deep and of the lower 
world, a hint that the flood comes from beneath 
as well as from above. 

" Ninib§ stepped forth, swam over the banks. Ramman's 
swelling waves rose to heaven. All the light was turned 
to darkness . . . like a destroying storm the elements 
bore down on men. Brother could not see brother, men 
were not regarded in heaven. || The gods themselves were 
terrified at the flood, they fled, mounting up to the heaven 
of Anu. The gods were like dogs . . . crouched on 
the mound 1[ [of heaven]. Ishtar shrieked with anger,** 
she, the kindly speaking, exalted one, cried: 'This peo- 
ple (?) is turned again to clay. The evil that I predicted 
before the gods, the evil ... I predicted the storm 
that brings destruction to my men.f f What I have brought 
forth, where is it? They fill the sea like a school of 
fishes (?).' The gods wept with her over the Annunaki.^:}:" 

* A storm god, associated with Samas. 

f Nabu, god of wisdom, probably of aqueous origin. 

X God of the lower world. 

§ A solar deity, also god of war. Jensen translates storm-sun. 

II " Men care not for one another. In the heavens," etc. 

^ The dam or mountain which supports the firmament. 

** " Groaned like a woman in throes." 

ff Jensen, Zimmern and Jastrow believe that she is reproach- 
ing herself. "That I should have assented to this evil among 
the gods, that when I assented to this evil, I was for the destruc- 
tion of my own creatures." — Jastrow. 

Xt The bad spirits who had let loose the elements. It may be 
" the gods who were over the Annunaki wept with her." — Jensen. 

(393) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

This fine and spirited description must have 
been inspired, one would suppose, by the recol- 
lection of some frightful upheaval of nature, at- 
tended with great loss of life. Making allowance 
for poetical and mythological expression, it 
would apply very well to the late destructive 
storm in Galveston. Evidently, as Jastrow says, 
the Flood is going further than the gods antici- 
pated or desired. Their first intention was but 
to destroy Surippak, but they have destroyed the 
world, and the rising waves threaten even their 
own abodes; hence their fear. Ishtar now de- 
clares that she had foretold it. Plainly, two dis- 
tinct traditions are interwoven in this portion of 
the poem; one of the destruction of Surippak, 
the other of the general destruction of the world. 

" The gods sat bent over with weeping, their Hps were 
pressed together. . , . Six days and six (?) nights * the 
storm wind raged on, the flood, the violent rain. When 
the seventh day came, the flood and the rain ceased. The 
storm that had fought the fight Hke a war chief, rested. 
The sea became narrower, the hurricane, the flood storm 
came to an end. Then I looked across the sea, let my 
voice go forth, but all men had returned to earth. Like 
the uru was the tcsalhi.\ I opened the hatchway: light fell 
on my face. I sank back, sat down and wept. Tears 
flowed over my face. I looked around: the world was a 
broad sea. Land rose [above the surface] 12 ells high.:}: 
Toward the mountain land Nisir the ship took its course. 
The mountain of the land Nisir held the ship fast and 

* Ihering, who assumes six days and seven nights for the Fl,ood, 
finds an allusion here to the Sabbath. The Flood lasted no longer 
because on the Sabbath the gods must rest. "It is the idea of 
the labor week of the Babylonians referred to the gods." — " Evol. 
of Aryan," 153. 

f Jensen, "like bare ground was the forest field ;" Jastrow, 
" in place of dams everything had become a marsh." 

\ Jastrow, " After twelve double hours," i. e., after twenty-four 
hours. Jensen hesitates between twelve days and twelve double 
hours. 

(394) 



The Mountain of Nisir 



would not let it move from the place. One day, a second 
day the mountain Nisir he'ld the ship fast and would not 
let it move from its place. A third and a fourth day [repe- 
tition of the same phrase]. A fifth and a sixth day, etc. 
As the seventh day approached, I let a dove fly out." 

The situation of the mountain in the land of 
Nisir seems to be settled by Schrader's * dis- 
covery of an inscription of Assurbanipal, which 
places it beyond the Tigris, east or southeast of 
the lower Zab. Holzinger f thinks that this loca- 
tion corresponds with Berosus' Kurdish moun- 
tains. Berosus, however, asserts that Xisuthros' 
landing place was in Armenia, which is consider- 
ably north of the lower Zab. Haupt and De- 
litzsch, on the contrary, remark that Nisir means 
nothing but '' rescue," hence the " mountain of 
rescue " has no geographical situation. In view 
of the fact that the land of Nisir is clearly defined 
in Assurbanipal's inscription, it can scarcely be 
regarded as a mythical mountain. The poem of 
Izdubar, it will be observed, carefully mentions a 
mountain in the land Nisir. We shall revert to 
this subject later. The episode of the birds is 
perhaps the most striking parallel to Genesis in 
the whole narrative. The author is careful to in- 
form us that the first bird was released seven days 
after the stranding of the vessel. Three birds are 
mentioned in Izdubar and only two in Genesis, 
but for the rest the resemblance is convincing. 

" The dove flew here and there, but because there was no 
resting place she came back. X Then I let a swallow fly out. 

*K. A. T.,p. 53- 

f"Gen.," p. 87, note 2. See also Budde, " Urgeschichte," 
436 ff. 

X " But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot and she 
returned." — Gen. viii. g. 



(395) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



The swallow flew here and there; because there was no 
resting place she came back. I let out a raven. The raven 
flew, saw the abatement of the waters, ate, let itself down 
. . . it did not come back. Then I let everything out 
[opened everything] to the four winds * and placed a 
sacrificial gift on the top of the mountain. Seven and seven 
vessels I set out. I spread out calmus, cedar wood and 
Sim-Gir."f 



This reminds us curiously of the sweet per- 
fume which Jahveh smelled, and which led Him 
to promise not to curse the earth again with a 
fiood.J 

" The gods smelled the perfume. The gods inhaled the 
good perfume. The gods swarmed like flies around the 
sacrificers. When the sublime one [Ishtar] came, she 
raised up the great lightning § that Anu had made for her 
pleasure. 'These gods! [she cried]. By my necklace, I 
will not forget it. i I will think upon these days, I will 
not forget them. The gods may come to the sacrifice; Bel 
shall not come to the sacrifice because he rashly caused 
the flood to arise and gave my men over to judgment.' " 

" When Bel came, he saw the ship.^ Then Bel was en- 
raged. He was filled with anger with the gods of the 
Igigi.** ' Who has escaped alive? No man was to escape 
alive in this judgment.' Ninib opened his mouth and 
spoke to the hero Bel. ' Who except Ea has done this 
thing? But Ea knows all oaths.'ff 

" Ea opened his mouth and spoke to the hero Bel: ' You 
judge of the gods, how rashly have you raised this flood. 
Punish the sinner for his sin, punish the wicked man for his 

* Jensen, " I went out, offered a sacrifice to the four winds." 

f Zimmern, "incense." 

X Gen. viii. 21, 

^Jensen, " great intaglios ; " Zimmern, " precious jewel." 

I Ishtar throughout the poem is a very vigorous and living 
figure, and thoroughly feminine. She has quite as much vitality 
as Homer's and Virgil's favorite heroines, but she is a little too 
violent. 

^ Until then he did not know that any had escaped. 

** Inferior deities, "on the whole severe and cruel," used by 
the great gods to execute their decrees. — Jastrow. 

ff " He was aware of your conspiracy." 

(396) 



Kesemblances to Genesis 



wickedness. Be merciful, let him not be destroyed. 
Cherish affection for him, let him not be exterminated.' " * 

So the story ends like ours with the promise 
that the Flood shall not come again, or, at all 
events, with a plea that it may not come again. 

" ' Instead of raising a flood, let lions come and diminish 
men. Instead of a flood, let leopards (?) come and dimin- 
ish men. Instead of a flood, let famine come and [dimin- 
ish] men. Instead of a flood, let a plague come and 
diminish men. I did not reveal the counsel of the great 
gods. I sent Andrahasis f a dream, and so he heard the 
decision of the great gods.' 

" Then Bel made his decision. The god Bel went up 
on the ship, seized my hand, led me up, led my wife up 
and caused her to kneel at my side. He embraced us, 
stepping between us and blessing us. ' Before this Sit- 
napistim was a man. Now, Sit-napistim and his wife shall 
be exalted like gods. Sit-napistim shall dwell in the dis- 
tant regions, at the confluence of streams shall he dwell.' 

" [Then they carried us away and caused us to dwell at 
the confluence of streams." — ^Jensen.] 

This, then, is the celebrated Babylonian narra- 
tive of the Flood, according to the best interpre- 
tations it has yet received. In spite of minor dif- 
ferences, it is encouraging to see how closely the 
best and latest translators are in agreement as 
to its meaning. It only remains for us to trace 
the points of resemblance and of difference be- 
tween this story and the Flood story of Genesis, 
and then to try to determine the relation which 
the two accounts bear to each other. 

The resemblances are very numerous, and I 
shall mention only the more important. As we 
learn at the end of the story, the determining 

* Zimmern conjectures with reason, " But be merciful, let not 
(all) be destroyed ; be patient, that (all) may not be wiped out." 
f Ea well preserves his reputation for truth and uprightness. 

(397) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

cause which moved the Babylonian deities to de- 
stroy Surippak, was the sinfuhiess of its inhabi- 
tants. Among these sinners was one righteous 
man, Sit-napistim, who was warned by the great 
god Ea of the coming disaster, and instructed to 
make a great vessel to save himself and his fam- 
ily, some animals and the seeds of all forms of 
life. The ark is circumstantially described. Its 
dimensions and proportions originally were care- 
fully traced, as in the account of our Priestly 
Writer, although they were differently estimated. 
Even such details as the description of the stories 
of the ark, the compartments or cells, the opening 
and closing of the door, and the caulking of the 
ark with bitumen, are strikingly similar to the 
statements of Genesis. The Flood comes seven 
days after the warning is given, as in the account 
of the Jehovist. Of all the coincidences of the 
two traditions the episode of the birds is perhaps 
the most indisputable. If this coincidence alone 
appeared in the two stories, it would prove a 
common origin or borrowing on one side or the 
other. In the Babylonian poem the deluge was 
preceded by a heavy rain, which, however, only 
served as a sign to Sit-napistim that the Flood had 
begun. Then followed a tornado, storm winds 
and more rain. It is true, the breaking up of the 
great deep is not specifically mentioned, which 
rather surprises us, as such a conception would 
be in entire accord with Babylonian cosmology. 
The immediate cause of the Flood is left undeter- 
mined, and the duration of the Flood is much less 
than in either of our accounts.* The points of 

* Sit-napistim's vessel grounds after only seven days. Seven 
days after the stranding of the ship Sit-napistim sends out his 

(39^ 



Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions 

resemblance thicken toward the end of the story. 
The grounding of the Babylonian ark on a moun- 
tain, the opening of the door, the exit from the 
ark, and the sacrifice of animals, of which the 
gods joyfully partake — all find direct counter- 
parts in our narrative. The pleasure of the gods 
in smelling the sweet perfume strangely reminds 
us of one of the most anthropomorphic verses of 
our Jehovist, and the assurance that a flood shall 
not come again completes a long series of paral- 
lels. I venture to afhrm that no person accus- 
tomed to judge of such matters can read these 
two narratives without the conviction that they 
are closely related. The question is, What is the 
relation of these two narratives ? Do they rep- 
resent two differentiated forms of the same primi- 
tive tradition, or was the Hebrew narrative bor- 
rowed directly from Babylonia, and if so, at what 
time? 

This, I need hardly say, is an exceedingly dif- 
ficult question, so difficult that it cannot be defi- 
nitely settled at the present time. One general 
statement can safely be made. Closely as our 
narrative agrees in many respects with the Flood 
episode of Izdubar, no one can pretend that the 
whole story of Genesis was derived from that 
poem. There are certain features, such as the 
dimensions of the ark, the reckoning of the time 
in days and months, the landing in Armenia, etc., 
in which Genesis agrees more closely with the 
tradition handed down by Berosus. There are 
other features, such as the longer duration of the 

birds, apparently one after the other. Then he goes out himself. 
The Flood therefore seems to have lasted scarcely more than four- 
teen days. 

(399) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Flood, the slow rise and subsidence of the waters, 
the breaking up of the great deep, etc., in which 
our story agrees with neither of the Babylonian 
traditions that we now possess. Moreover, 
there are several features in Izdubar, such as Sit- 
napistim's prayer for those about to perish, and 
his tears for those who had perished, which might 
very well have been taken over, but which have 
been entirely omitted. The beautiful rainbow 
story, in spite of Sayce's * attempt to associate it 
with the necklace of Ishtar, is not found in any 
Babylonian Flood traditions with which we are 
acquainted. We know, however, that other tra- 
ditions of the Flood existed in Babylon. f Mak- 
ing these allowances and feeling the necessity of 
observing the utmost caution in dealing with this 
deHcate problem, I may venture the following 
tentative observations : 

Between the two narratives recorded in Gen- 
esis and Izdubar there can be little question as to 
which is the older and the more original. It is 
only necessary to say that the poem of Izdubar 
dates from about 2000 B.C., while the older of 
our two writers, the Jehovist, lived not earlier 
than 900 B.C. It is therefore impossible on his- 
torical, to say nothing of linguistic grounds, that 
the Babylonian story could have been taken from 
the Book of Genesis. There are, however, two 
other hypotheses permissible, (i) Our narrative 
may have been borrowed directly from the Baby- 

* " Fresh Light from the Monuments," p. 311. 

f In the eleventh International Congress of Orientalists (Sep- 
tember, 1897), Scheil presented a tablet dating from the days of 
Hammurabi, in which the story of the Deluge is narrated in a 
manner quite different from that of the Gilgamesh episode. Jas- 
trow, 507, note i. 

(400) 



Origin of Flood Tradition 



Ionian at a comparatively late date, shortly be- 
fore the Jehovist wrote; or, (2) Both narratives 
may represent genuinely ancient national tradi- 
tions, the Babylonian tradition the older, and the 
Hebrew ultimately depending on it. Let us con- 
sider the forrrier alternative first. If our nar- 
rative was borrowed directly from the Babylo- 
nian, in historical times, what date would be most 
suitable for such a wholesale loan to have taken 
place ? It has been frequently asserted "^ that the 
Hebrews did not receive nor write their story of 
the Flood until the captivity in Babylon, or even 
later. As to the Babylonian captivity proper 
(605-536 B.C.), this can hardly be maintained, for 
the Jehovist, whose narrative most resembles the 
Babylonian, lived at least a hundred years earlier. 
Dillmann f also is quite right in saying, '' It is 
inconceivable that the Hebrews should have ap- 
propriated from their enemies, the Babylonians, 
a local legend originally quite foreign to them 
and steeped in the silliest polytheism." We 
know, however, that for several centuries before 
the " Seventy Years," Assyrian armies were con- 
stantly in Palestine, and that as early as 740 B.C. 
Tiglath-pileser carried portions of the tribes of 
Reuben, Gad and Manasseh away to Assyria. It 
is therefore not impossible that during the eighth 
century, or somewhat earlier, the tradition first 
came to the Hebrews from Babylon or Nineveh. 
With this view Budde t seems to agree, speaking 
of the " transmission of spiritual sparks " and an 

*E.g., by Goldziher, " Der Mythos bei den Hebraern," p. 
382 ff., 1876. Delitzsch, "Wo lag das Paradies?" pp. 94, 157, 
P. Haupt, " Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht," p. 20, 1881. 



f " Gen.," i. 262 

i " Urgeschichte," 515 ff. 

86 (401) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

" eruption of sagas " from Mesopotamia in the 
ninth and eighth centuries, and especiaUy of 
Ahaz's friendship for Tiglath-pileser and the 
ahar Ahaz bought in Damascus,* etc., etc. 

I do not consider this impossible, but, in view 
of the hostihty of the Prophets to every form of 
polytheism, the abhorrence in which Ahaz's 
memory was held, and the attitude of the He- 
brews toward Assyria, it seems improbable, if the 
Hebrews had not known it before, that such a 
legend as the Babylonian Flood story should 
have found a place in their Sacred Books at 
this time. Since the discovery of the Tel-el- 
Amarna tablets, all our ideas in regard to the 
influence of Babylonia in Canaan have been pro- 
foundly modified. These letters, written in the 
fifteenth century B.C., in the Babylonian cunei- 
form characters, prove conclusively that the lan- 
guage of Babylon was used as a means of com- 
munication at that early date in Canaan. But if 
people could write the Babylonian dialect, they 
could also read it. Without imagining that the 
ancient Hebrews were in the habit of reading 
Babylonian literature, there is still much reason 
to believe that Canaan, from very early times, 
was penetrated by Babylonian mythology and 
tradition.! There is therefore no reason why we 

*II. Kings, 7-16. 

f So, about the year 1400 B.C., the Semitic dialect of Babylon 
was a kind of diplomatic language of commerce, which was learned 
by educated persons in Syria along with the cuneiform characters. 
That numerous other loans followed this, especially the trans- 
mission of a great mass of Babylonian ideas, is apparent. — Ben- 
zinger's " Archaol.," p. 67, 1894. 

That means simply that at this time (1400 B.C.) people had 
knowledge of Babylonian literature, at least to a certain degree. 
For, to write such Babylonian letters as were then frequently 

(402) 



Early Transmission of Legend 

^^*'^^"'^"^^'^^^— — — ^— — ^— ^^^^^^^^^^^™^^^^^^^— — — ^^"^i^^^^ -^ 

should not ascend considerably above the ninth 
century in endeavoring to fix the time at which 
the Hebrews became acquainted with the Baby- 
lonian story of the Flood. Of course, so far as 
historical fact is concerned in such an inquiry as 
this, we are at present simply walking on air ; but 
in default of definite historical proof in either di- 
rection, there are other considerations on which 
we may legitimately fall back. 

It is very improbable that a writer of the moral 
and religious elevation of our Jehovist should 
have appropriated a story full of the crudest and 
most revolting polytheism, and should have in- 
corporated it into the Hebrews' sacred Hterature. 
It is at least more probable that the Babylonian 
tradition had been transmitted orally to the He- 
brews in early times; and having undergone 
many modifications, had become one of their own 
national traditions. This is the impression which 
the story of Genesis leaves with us. Although the 
Biblical writers make no effort to conceal its Bab- 
ylonian origin, there is an unspoken assumption 
running all through the earlier chapters of Gen- 
written in Palestine, the Palestinian writer must have occupied him- 
self not a little with the Babylonian characters and language. 
The learning of several hundred cuneiform symbols, with their 
phonetic values and meanings, could not have been avoided by a 
Palestinian wishing to employ them, any more than by a student 
of Assyriology at the present time. How foreigners set to work 
to learn Assyrian at that time we can see from the Tel-el-Amarna 
discovery. For alongside of Babylonian vocabularies, collections 
of signs and other similar aids, which were employed in learning 
Babylonian, two rather large Babylonian mythical texts were 
found, in which Egyptian scribes had indicated the separation of 
words by red and black points, and which therefore plainly served 
as an Assyrian chrestomathy. Through the discovery of these 
two mythological texts it was first established that at this time 
mythical traditions from Babylonia wandered into the west. — 
Zimmern in Gunkel's " Schopfung und Chaos." 

(403) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



esis that the two peoples were originally one, and 
that the ancestors of the Hebrews came from the 
land of the two rivers. These traditions, which 
are certainly ancient, can hardly have arisen in 
the ninth or eighth century, through the fact that 
the Hebrews had borrowed the Babylonian leg- 
ends of Creation and of the Flood.* 

Moreover, a close comparison of the two nar- 
ratives does not favor the supposition that our 
Flood story was borrowed directly from any 
written Babylonian account that has come 
down to us. In spite of the curious resemblance 
of details, the impression of the traditions in their 
entirety is very different. The Flood episode in 
Izdubar is pure epic poetry, while both our 
stories are prose. The polytheism with which 
the Babylonian story teems has vanished. No 
part of the Old Testament is more strictly mono- 
theistic than the story of the Flood. There is 
not a hint in Genesis that our authors are dealing 
with foreign ideas; but, on the other hand, the 
earlier chapters of Genesis, e. g., those containing 
the marriage of the sons of God and the daugh- 
ters of men,t the genealogy of Seth, etc., were 
plainly inserted with reference to the Flood, and 
the later chapters about Noah's descendants 
spring immediately from the Flood story. All 
these traditions, therefore, must have been fabri- 
cated at a late date if the Flood tradition was bor- 
rowed about the time of the Exile. 

* Still more conclusive is the ethnographical table of Gen. x., 
which traces the descent of the nations from the three sons of 
Noah. 

f I do not mean to imply that these traditions were originally 
composed with reference to the Flood, but it is plain that the writers 
of Genesis employed them to lead up to that subject. 



(404) 



Details of Hebrew Story 



Further, many of the details of the narrative 
do not give the impression of having been bor- 
rowed at a late date from the text of the Babylo- 
nian story. In some respects our account follows 
Berosus more closely than it follows Izdubar. We 
should therefore have to assume that our writers 
had several forms of the Babylonian tradition be- 
fore them. The manner in which Noah's ark is 
described seems to imply a gradual transforma- 
tion of the tradition to suit the ideas of a non- 
maritime people. Even the episode of the birds, 
on which so much stress is rightly laid, has been 
altered considerably in our story, and it is just 
one of those beautiful, picturesque touches which 
would be remembered forever. Much more im- 
portant than this is the fact that several incidents 
of the Babylonian story, profoundly transformed, 
reappear in other Hebrew traditions which have 
little to do with the Flood. In particular there 
is the striking episode of the translation of Sit- 
napistim or Xisuthros, not a trace of which now 
appears in the story of Noah. In Genesis, how- 
ever, Enoch is translated. So writers have seen 
in the destruction of Sodom a parallel to the de- 
struction of Surippak with which the Babylonian 
Flood story began. From the expression at the 
lend of the Sodom story, '' There is not a man in 
the earth," * it would appear that the burning of 
1 Sodom was once part of a story of universal de- 
■ struction.f I might also point to Tiamat as an 
example of a mythical Babylonian conception 
which, slightly transformed, has worked its way 
through almost every stratum of the Old Testa- 
ment. 

*Gen. xix. 31. f Noticed by Ewald. 



(405) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

All these indications point, I think, to a grad- 
ual infiltration of Babylonian myths and tradi- 
tions into Israelitish soil in very early times, and 
to their adoption first by the people, rather than 
to a direct and conscious borrowing by the sacred 
writers in comparatively late times. In almost 
every case these stories are such as would appeal 
to the popular imagination, and once learned 
they would never be forgotten. 1 will only add 
that several of the most able Assyriologists and 
Hebraists, in the main, are in agreement with 
this view. Jastrow * says, '' The slight variations 
between the Biblical and the Babylonian narra- 
tives . . . justify the conclusion that the 
Hebrew story is not borrowed directly from the 
Babylonian." Gunkel f remarks, '' Here, too, as 
well as in the first chapter of Genesis, the thought 
of direct assumption [of the Babylonian narra- 
tive by the writers of Genesis] is wholly remote." 
Jeremias t observes, " Certainly the contents of 
the narrative in the Bible and in the inscriptions, 
represent an old and common possession of the 
Semitic tribes of the Euphrates and Tigris land." 
Duncker,§ whose words Jeremias quotes with ap- 
proval, expresses himself in the same manner, 
and adds that in the Hebrew writings the old tra- 
dition lies before us " in a purified and deeper 
form." Jensen, so far as I am aware, does not 
express himself on this point. Ihering || thinks 
that '' the Jews on their separation from the 
mother nation took this idea [of a flood], like 
so many others, away with them." Dillmann,Tf 

* " Relig-. of Bab.," 506. f " Schopf. und Chaos," 143 flf. 
± " Izdubar-Nimrod," 37. § " Gesch. des Alt.," i. 236. 
I " Evol. of Aryan," 150. ^ "Gen.," i. 262, 263. 

(406) 



Peiser and Scheil 



while willing to admit that specific knowledge of 
the Babylonian compositions probably came to 
Israel under the kings, still believes that " Some 
vague knowledge of a flood which destroyed 
mankind was already current among them." On 
the other hand, Stade * combats the position of 
Gunkel, and insists that the Babylonian saga 
came late .to Israel, while Kuenen thinks '' the 
later we place such a borrowing the more com- 
prehensible it is," which seems to me the reverse 
of the truth. The earHest allusions to Noah in 
the Old Testament are in the Deutero-Isaiah.f 
and in Ezekiel,$ the Prophet of the Exile, from 
which, however, as Dillmann § afhrms, it cannot 
be concluded that he was not known before. 

In this connection I must not forget to men- 
tion two other Babylonian Flood traditions which 
have been recovered in recent years, both un- 
fortunately much mutilated. In 1889 Peiser 
published a mythological text with a map which 
purported to give a picture of Babylonia during 
the Deluge. 1 1 The text is very fragmentary, but 
the map is of great interest, as I shall show in a 
later chapter. It represents the Persian Gulf as 
encroaching on the territory of Babylonia. 

The third cuneiform Deluge fragment was dis- 
covered by Father V. Scheil among the tablets of 
the museum of Constantinople, and was pre- 
sented by him before the International Congress 
of Orientalists, which met in Paris in 1897. In 
January, 1898, Scheil communicated the results 
of his discovery to Americans in the columns of 

*"Z. A. T. W.," 1895, p. 160. f Isa. Hv. 9. 

ifEzek. xiv. 14, 20. § " Gen.," i. 262. 

II " Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie," iv. 369 ff., 1889. 



(407) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the " Independent." His article was followed 
by two very interesting elucidative and critical 
papers by Dr. Jastrow.* The importance of 
Scheil's document, which is a mere fragment, lies 
An its great age and in the fact that it represents a 
Babylonian Flood tradition apparently indepen- 
dent of the epic of Izdubar. It is also exceedingly 
interesting to note that the tablet was found in 
Sippara, the seat of Berosus' Flood legend, and 
that it was written by a scribe of that city. In 
point of age this Flood tablet is the oldest we pos- 
sess. It purports to have been inscribed in the 
reign of King Ammizaduga (about 2140 B.C.), 
and as it is a copy, no one can say how old the 
original Flood story may be. 

The situation described is this: Ramman, or, 
as Jastrow thinks, Bel, has determined to destroy 
mankind, and utters a malediction against men. 
A deity whom Scheil recognizes as Ea, takes the 
part of humanity and pleads its cause, as in the 
Izdubar epic. 

Col. vii. Ea spake the word 
And said to me: 

" Why wilt thou make men to die . . . 
I will reach out my hand to men . . . 
The deluge of which thou speakest . . , 
Whatever it may be, I ... 
I shall have produced (in vain ?) 
He shall be informed of it ... 
To the end that he build . . . 
And he shall beget . . . 
That they may enter (into the ship) . . . 
That Pir (napistim take) the oar . . . 
That he may come," etc.f 

* New York " Independent," Jan. 20, Feb. 10 and 17, 1898. 

f I have unfortunately Scheil's first translation only, which ap-< 
peared in the "Independent," and I believe has since been 
emended. 

(408) 



Scheil's Fragment 



Finally there are two lines of a speech by Sit- 
napistim, part of whose name has been identified 
and who is called here Adram-hasis. 

Adram-hasis utters his word 
And speaks to his lord. 

It is quite possible that this version of the 
Flood, which was written in Sippara, may have 
been one of the sources from which Berosus 
drew his account. Berosus, though a priest of 
Bel in Babylon, constantly speaks of Sippara in 
his story of the Deluge. There the sacred writ- 
ings are to be concealed. Thither the survivors 
of the Flood are to return. Fragmentary as 
this text is, one might even imagine that it told 
a story which resembled Berosus' account more 
than the account of Izdubar. The deluge de- 
scribed seems to be universal, not confined to a 
single city, and Sit-napistim, only a portion of 
whose name appears, if it is there at all, is called 
by the famiHar name Adram-hasis, which in Be- 
rosus has been corrupted to Xisuthros. Jastrow 
even goes so far as to conjecture that there were 
originally two independent Flood stories in Bab- 
ylonia, the hero of one being Sit-napistim, or, 
as he prefers, Par-napistim, and the hero of the 
other, Adra-hasis, in Scheil's fragment written 
Adram-hasis. Although this tradition is re- 
garded as independent of the Izdubar epic, the 
attitude of the gods, the intercession of Fa, his 
warning to Sit-napistim, etc., seem to be much 
the same as in that poem. 

The second column, which is also very much 
iniured, Scheil translates as follows: 

(409) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Col. ii. That , . . 

That he has . . . 

That he should kill, that he should destroy, 

In the morning that he should rain down the 

extermination . . . 
That during the night he should prolong . . . 
That he should rain down the inundation . . . 
The plain, he will make its ruin great; the 

city . . . 
That which Ramman shall have accomplished, 
He says he will overturn (?) the land , . . 
He raises a cry . . . 
(The gods) will not fear. 



Unfortunately, this is hardly intelligible. 

I may sum up the result of this investigation as 
follows : It is not impossible that the Flood story, 
as several excellent writers have believed, is part 
of a primitive tradition which the Hebrews 
shared with the Babylonians. Leaving that hy- 
pothesis on one side, we know^ that at a very early 
period, before the Hebrews entered Canaan, 
many Babylonian myths were almost certainly 
known to the Canaanites, who wrote the Baby- 
lonian language. It is therefore permissible to 
suppose that the more striking of these myths 
were handed down in Canaan, where the He- 
brews learned them from the Canaanites, who 
taught them so many other things. Such myths 
would be the more congenial to them as they 
were probably very similar to the Hebrews' own 
earliest traditions. I would, however, by no 
means exclude the idea that at a later time, 
shortly before our earliest Genesis was com- 
posed, the Hebrews came in contact with the lit- 
erary versions of the Babylonian stories which 
we possess, and very likely with other additional 
versions that may yet be discovered. Indeed, 

(410) 



Literary Versions 



this supposition seems to me necessary in order 
to account for those minute points of resem- 
blance between the narratives, which surely 
would have been obscured if the Hebrew tradi- 
tion had been handed down orally for hundreds 
of years before it was reduced to writing. 



(411) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Nineteen: 

The Flood Traditions of Primitive Peoples 

I LJEFORE we pass to the consideration of the 
' U traditions of the Deluge preserved by 
primitive peoples in different parts of the world, 
I should like to express an opinion as to the 
nature of the occurrence itself. I have said 
more than once that no universal Deluge, cover- 
ing the tops of high mountains, has taken place 
on this earth in historical times. Certainly no 
such universal destruction of life occurred at the 
time when the Hebrew Scriptures placed our 
Flood, which is represented as occurring only 
about 2500 years before Christ. At that time, 
Egypt, in the valley of the Nile, had reached a 
high state of civilization, yet Egypt was not de- 
stroyed. On what, then, was our Flood story 
based? In a subsequent chapter I shall attempt 
to give a specific answer to this legitimate ques- 
tion. Here I will content myself with noticing 
some erroneous views. What compHcates this 
question is the fact that the Hebrews and Baby- 
lonians are by no means the only peoples that 
have preserved a tradition of the destruction of 
the world by water. Traditions of a flood are 
to be found in almost every quarter of the world. 
This strange fact has for centuries obscured the 
discussion of this question. It is easy to see what 

(412) 



Universality of Flood 



support the wide diffusion of a Flood legend 
has given to the dogma of literalists, that a uni- 
versal Deluge actually occurred, of which these 
numerous traditions are the echoes. This his- 
torical fact, the diffusion of a Flood tradition, in 
its turn receives powerful support from a physical 
fact, namely, that the remains of sea animals, 
whales, turtles, petrified fishes and marine shells 
are to be found in many parts of the world, on 
mountains or other elevated places, far inland or 
lifted high above the present level of the sea. 
These two apparently independent facts, both 
which appear to furnish powerful support to the 
literal acceptance of the statements of Genesis, 
sufficiently explain why the old belief in a univer- 
sal Deluge has been maintained with the utmost 
obstinacy. As to the scientific aspect of this ques- 
tion, I have nothing to say. Long as the con- 
troversy between theology and geology was "^ 
waged, it is waged no longer. In this unequal ^ 
conffict, geology has remained absolutely in pos- 
session of the field. In fact, the whole dispute 
has for us now only an historical interest. It 
would be a difficult task to discover any first- 
class theological or Biblical text-book written 
within the past ten years, which maintains the 
universality of Noah's Flood. Even so conserva- 
tive a work as Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible " 
asserts the contrary. If you will look at the 
English edition of that well-known work, you 
will observe that under the word " Deluge " you 
are referred to the word " Flood." Turning to 
" Flood," you are again referred to the word 
" Noah," where you will find a fairly good article 
by the Very Rev. Dr. Perowne. The reason of 



(413) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

this game of hide-and-seek in the Dictionary is 
said to be as follows : The purpose of the editor 
was to avoid another controversy with geology, 
but to maintain the strict universality of the 
Flood. He committed this difficult task to a 
man of abihty. But when this gentleman's arti- 
cle on '' The Deluge " was submitted, it was 
found to bristle with heresies, in consequence of 
which it had to be rejected. A second and more 
conservative scholar was chosen to write on ''The 
Flood," but his article proved worse than the 
first. Only one other reference could decently be 
made. Accordingly, Dr. Perowne was commis- 
sioned to write on " Noah," and though, as 
Bishop Colenso remarked, " he practically con- 
cedes the whole thing," the editors, despairing of 
doing better, were obliged to publish his article. 
A similar surrender is found in Home's celebrated 
" Introduction to the Scriptures," from which 
the old argument from fossils was quietly 
dropped in the seventh edition (about 1856).* 
Those who are interested in the history of the 
scientific controversy will find it fully treated in 
Andrew D. White's " History of the Warfare of 
Science with Theology " (chapter v.), and more 
formally in Zockler's " Geschichte der Bezie- 
hungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissen- 
schaft." t Here I will merely say that the nu- 
merous remains of shells, fossil fishes, etc., de- 
posited in places which the sea does not now 
reach, could by no means be accounted for by a 

* The statement in regard to Smith's "Diet, of the Bible" 
rests on the word of Dr. W. D. Carpenter, the physiologist. Both 
statements are here taken from Andrew D. White's "Warfare of 
Science with Theol.," i. 234, 235. 

f 2 vols., Glitersloh, 1877, pp. 122, 470, 784 fif. 

(414) 



Diffusion of Flood Tradition 

flood which, at longest, lasted but one year. 
They were the work of ages. When we discover 
unmistakable signs of the sea's presence and ac- 
tion on high mountains, it is natural to suppose 
that the sea once covered those mountains; but 
it is also possible that those mountains were once 
part of the bed of the sea and were afterward 
elevated. It is this supposition which finds favor 
with geologists. 

The second great fact, however, the wide dif- 
fusion of the Flood tradition, is not so easily dis- 
missed. If no universal Deluge has occurred, 
how does it happen that races so remote as the 
Babylonians, the Australians, the Mexicans, the 
Eskimos and the Peruvians, have preserved un- 
mistakable traditions of such a flood? Before 
we attempt to answer this question, I should like 
to make two preliminary observations, (i) If any 
such universal catastrophe had occurred in his- 
torical times, not merely some nations, but all 
ancient nations, must have suffered from it. But, 
as we have seen, no tradition of the Flood has 
been preserved in Egypt, and no true Flood le- 
gend exists in China, although the Chinese and the 
Egyptians were the two nations of antiquity that 
were most careful to preserve their history. This 
one fact is fatal to the supposition that all these 
traditions arose from the recollection of a com- 
mon physical catastrophe. (2) It is well known 
that savage nations like the native Australian 
tribes, the Eskimos and the American Indians, do 
not remember anything very long. At all events, 
they have no ancient history. Von Hahn re- 
marks that at a low grade of culture, the mem- 
ory of the most striking events is preserved for 

l4n) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

only a few generations. Sir John Lubbock cites 
several examples of this fact; e.g., the speedy 
obliteration of Tasman's visit * from the minds of 
the New Zealanders, and the American Indians' 
forgetfulness of so important an event as the 
visit of De Soto.f Tyler asserts that '' the lower 
races — loose in preserving tradition, and ever 
ready to clothe myth in its shape, — can seldom be 
trusted in their stories of long past ages." J 

Now, however we may regard the Flood story, 
if the flood described in the Babylonian and the 
Hebrew Scriptures occurred at all, it occurred 
before 2000 B.C., since one of the Babylonian ac- 
counts possesses this great age. Accordingly, 
it would be necessary to suppose that such races 
as the Eskimos, which possess no knowledge of 
the events of a hundred years ago, have preserved 
the recollection of this event for more than 3500 
years. This is too improbable. 

We pass now to a brief study of the diffusion 
of the Flood tradition among the lower races of 
mankind. In our former study of this tradition 
among the great civilized nations of the old 
world, we did not find independent traditions of 
a universal Deluge to be at all numerous; in fact, 
it may well be supposed that the Hebrew, Hindu, 
Persian and Greek stories all rest ultimately on 
the old Babylonian tradition. In studying the 
Flood myth among savage and barbarous peoples 
of modern times, we are dealing with very dif- 
ferent material. Here we have not carefully 
written native documents, but for the most part, 

*Tylor, however, calls attention to the fact that Tasman did 
not land in New Zealand. " Early Hist, of Mankind," i6i. 
f " Prehistoric Times," 426 f. 
I " Primitive Culture," i. 39. 

(416) 



Geographical Distribution 



mere oral traditions, collected by travellers and 
missionaries among peoples possessing some 
knowledge of the Bible and of Noah's Flood. iC^< 
We are therefore obliged to be constantly on our ,-^--s^*-"* ' 
guard. Many of the most striking resemblances ' . '^.it.-^ 
that have been pointed out between these stories ^ 
and our own can be explained by the fact that 
the native myths have been profoundly influ- 
enced by Genesis. In fact, almost every modern 
Flood story recorded by Christian missionaries! 
and travellers is open to this suspicion, and! 
therefore each must be judged on its own merits.- 
Among all the Flood stories of ancient and mod- 
ern times that Andree has been able to collect, he 
recognizes only fort}'" as original and independ- 
ent, and some of these ought to be eliminated.* 

In regard to its geographical distribution, we 
may say that the Flood story is found in western 
Asia, Thibet, India, in the peninsula of Kam- 
chatka, on the continent of Australia, in New 
Guinea, Polynesia and Melanesia, and in Micro- 
nesia as far as the Sandwich Islands. The conti- 
nent of North America is rich in Flood stories 
from the Arctic Circle to Mexico. So are also 
Central and South America and Greenland. On 
the other hand, the Flood story does not appear 
at all in Arabia, in central and northern Asia, in 
China or Japan. On the whole continent of 
Africa, it occurs scarcely at all except under 
Christian influences. The only Flood traditions 

/^ * "Die Flutsagen, ethnographisch betrachtet," Richard Andree, 
'^Braunschweig, 1891. In the following discussion, in addition to 
this excellent though incomplete work, I have consulted Schwarz's 
" Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen ; " Ratzel's " Volkerkunde ; " 
Waltz's "Anthropologic;" Brinton's "Myths of the New 
World ;" Bancroft's " Native Races of the Pacific States." 



(417) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of Europe not directly influenced by the Bible 
are those of the Greeks, which probably have a 
Semitic origin, and perhaps the Lithuanian tra- 
ditions. In the East Indies, the Flood story 
occurs so seldom that in this general survey it 
can be disregarded. I may add that the Bud- 
dhist religion in general knows nothing of a 
Flood, and that the only knowledge Islam pos- 
sesses of it came directly or indirectly from the 
Bible. 

We see, therefore, that the Flood tradition is 
by no means so general as many writers as- 
sume. And yet its wide diffusion astonishes us. 
I doubt if any similar myth or tradition has 
found such general acceptance among peoples 
so diverse. Out of this vast mass of mythical tra- 
dition, a large part of which has not yet been 
collected and sifted, I can present to you only a 
few specimens ; but I shall choose these from va- 
rious parts of the globe, so that from a few you 
may form a conception of all. 

In Europe the Lithuanians have a curious le- 
gend. The chief of their gods, Pramzimas, one 
day looked out over the world from the window 
of his heavenly house and beheld nothing but 
war and wickedness among men. Accordingly 
he sent two giants, Wandu and Wejas, to the 
sinful earth, who wasted and destroyed it for 
twenty days and nights. Pramzimas looked 
down again while he was eating heavenly nuts, 
and threw down a shell which rested on the top 
of one of the highest mountains. On this moun- 
tain the animals and several men and women had 
taken refuge. They all got into the nutshell, 
which floated on the flood that now covered 

(418) 



Australia and Hawaii 



everything. The god turned his face a third 
time to the earth, and caused the storm to abate 
and the water to run off. The rescued men and 
women separated, and only one couple remained 
in the quarter of the world from which the Lithu- 
anians come. They, however, were old, and 
they were concerned about offspring. Pram- 
zimas then sent a rainbow to comfort them, 
which advised them to jump over the bones of 
the earth. Nine times they jumped, and nine 
pairs of human beings appeared, who became 
the parents of the nine Lithuanian tribes.* Un- 
questionably this story was influenced by the 
Bible, though it is strongly tinctured with 
heathen mythology. The reappearance of the 
Greek episode of the stones from which the new 
race is made, is very curious. 

In Australia, as I have said, the Flood legend 
is very common. The natives of Victoria tell 
this short story among others : " Long, long ago, 
when our fathers were living, there was a great' 
flood. All the land round about stood under 
water, and all the black fellows drowned except 
one man and two or three women, who took 
refuge in a little island near Port Albert. Then 
the pelican came in a canoe, saw the poor people 
and rescued them." f This seems to be a genu- 
ine native story, though the part played by the 
bird is curious. 

Another characteristic native Flood story 
comes from Hawaii. Hawaii, like so many of the 
islands of the Pacific, contains volcanoes. Ac- 

* Grimm, " Deutsche Mythologie," 3d ed., 545. 
f Broug-h Smith, " The Aborigines of Victoria," i. 477, Mel- 
bourne, 1878. Quoted by Andree. 



(419) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

cordingly, one of the chief deities of the Ha- 
waiians is a terrible, subterranean fire-goddess, 
Pele, who goes from one island to another, bor- 
ing out mountains and filling them with fire. 
Once, long ago, when Pele lived in Samoa or 
New Zealand, her husband left her and fled with 
another goddess to the Island of Hawaii. The in- 
furiated Pele started in pursuit, taking with her 
her frightful brothers and sisters, the Cloud-king, 
the Lightning, the Thunder-man, the Fire- 
thrower, the Boat-breaker with fiery eyes, the 
Heaven-splitter. To aid Pele on her voyage, 
her parents gave her the sea, which bore the boat 
along. Hawaii was at that time a horrible desert 
without water, but Pele caused such a flood to 
arise that only the peaks of the highest moun- 
tains were visible. Then the sea sank again to 
its present level.* 

This story seems like a reminiscence of an 
earthquake accompanied by a volcanic outbreak. 

Many of these islands have their own local 
Flood stories. The following is from Pelew, one 
of the Caroline group. Old Dame Milath, who 
had brought forth four countries, lived at a very 
advanced age in Eirrai. The people of that 
place had killed Atndokt, one of the seven Kalit 
(heroes, protecting deities) ; and as his friends 
went everywhere in search of him, they came at 
last to the door of Milath's house. In the most 
friendly manner she bade them enter, and asked 
them for whom they were looking. They told 
her the sad news and resolved in their anger to 
destroy all the inhabitants with the exception 
of Milath. They instructed her therefore to 

*Frd. Ratzel, " Volkerkunde," ii. 315, 316. 
(420) 



Pelew and Leeward Islands 

make a raft of bamboo, securing it with a long 
rope in front of her house, and shortly before 
the full moon, to store it with provisions, and 
to sleep on it. The woman did as they com- 
manded, and soon the water covered all the dry 
land, and only the raft of Milath lived on the 
flood. Soon, however, the cable became too 
short, and Milath was washed off the raft and 
drowned. Her body was carried ashore, where 
the friends who had warned her turned her body 
into stone ; or, according to another version, the 
goddess (Kalit) entered into it and became the 
mother of the present inhabitants of Pelew.* 

Another celebrated story, from the Leeward 
Islands (western group of Society Islands), runs 
as follows : A certain god Ruahatu, the Neptune 
of the South Sea, used to repose between coral 
clififs, at the bottom of the sea, in consequence 
of which that spot was considered sacred. But 
a fisherman, who either was not aware of this 
tahu, or who disregarded it, sailed his boat into 
the forbidden waters and threw out his hook be- 
tween the corals. The hook became entangled 
in the hair of the god, who was sleeping below. 
When the fisherman attempted to pull up his 
line, he found it was fast, and after tugging long 
and hard, he managed to draw up to the surface 
of the water the rudely-awakened and angry 
god. After Ruahatu had reproached the fish- 
erman for his fault, he declared that the land had 
become sinful and must be destroyed. The ter- 
rified fisherman threw himself on his knees and 
implored the god either not to carry out his pur- 
pose or to allow him to escape. Ruahatu was 

* Frd. Ratzel, " Volkerkunde," ii. 320. 
(421) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

mollified, and commanded the fisherman to 
hasten home to his wife and child, and to take 
them to a little island, Toa-marama, where they 
would be safe, while all the other islands would 
be destroyed. This the fisherman did, taking 
with him not only his wife and child and a friend, 
but also his dogs, pigs and chickens. Before 
night they reached the island, and as the sun rose 
the next morning, the waters of the ocean began 
to rise. ■ The inhabitants left their homes and fled 
to the mountains, but the waters continued to 
rise until the very peaks of the mountains were 
covered and all the people were drowned. When 
the flood began to subside, the fisherman re- 
turned to his home and became the father of the 
present inhabitants. The island Tao-marama, to 
which he retired, is a little round, coral island, 
barely two feet above the level of the sea, and 
when the present inhabitants are asked why it 
was not submerged they do not know what to 
say. They point, however, to the remains of 
corals and mussels which are found on the moun- 
tains, as a proof of the height to which the waters 
rose."^ 
/ I will not multiply these Polynesian traditions, 

though I have collected many others. f Although 
Christian influence is apparent in some of them, 
others appear to be of purely native origin. It 
would seem that most of these stories arose very 
simply from the observation of natural phenom- 
ena, which afterward were given a mythical inter- 

* W. Ellis, " Polynesian Researches," ii. 58. 

f See Andree, 55 f.; Ratzel, ii. 317, 310 f.; Lenormant, ''Be- 
gin, of Hist.," chap, viii.; Tylor, " Early History of Mankind," 
325-332- 

(422) 



Geographical Conditions 



pretation. These islands are generally either of 
volcanic or of coral formation. Many of them 
are elevated but a few feet above the sea. They 
lie in a zone of earthquakes and hurricanes, from 
either of which causes low-lying islands are sub- 
merged. In consequence of submarine disturb- 
ances, islands have been known to sink and dis- 
appear. Traditions of these recurring events 
would naturally be preserved, and in time would 
be invested with mythical characteristics. Even 
such points of resemblance with Genesis as a 
warning or the escape of a certain person in a 
boat or on a raft, would arise so naturally among 
people who spend their lives on the water and 
who are accustomed to read the signs of regu- 
larly recurring storms, that they need cause us 
little surprise. It does not seem to me, there- 
fore, that these myths present any particular 
problem which renders it necessary to coordi- 
nate them with similar tales in other parts of the 
world. They are sufficiently accounted for by 
climatic and geographical conditions, embel- 
lished by the myth-making faculty of primitive 
peoples. Where similarity to Genesis becomes 
apparent, it is due to the direct influence of the 
Bible. 

I shall not linger over the Flood stories of Asia. 
They are to be found in many parts of the conti- 
nent, in Cashmir, Thibet, Kamchatka and in 
different parts of India, but they are not par- 
ticularly interesting or original. In northern 
and central Asia, Andree has been able to find no 
Flood traditions, and also in China * and Japan 

* The so-called Flood story of China, frequently quoted , is merely 
a record of a local freshet caused by the overflow of the IIoang--Ho. 



(423) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

they are wholly absent. In Europe, besides the 
two traditions of the Greeks and the Lithuanian 
story which we have already related, there is a 
tale in the younger Edda which informs us how 
the sons of the god Boer killed the giant Ymir, 
from whom flowed such a deluge of blood that 
all the giants except one were drowned. This, 
however, can hardly be called a Flood tradition, 
as it occurred before the creation of man. The 
Welsh also have an old legend to the effect that 
all Britain was once overwhelmed with water, in 
which all the inhabitants perished except Dwy- 
van and Dwyvach, who founded a new race.* 
From the way the preservation of animals is de- 
scribed in this story, it appears to be adapted 
from the Bible. 

In Africa the Flood story almost, if not alto- 
gether, disappears. Livingstone, in the course 
of his long journeys, found one insignificant 
Flood tradition, which, however, only described 
the formation of a lake. Other African Flood 
stories may usually be ascribed to Christian in- 
fluences.! 

We come then to America, a country rich in 
Flood myths, and possessing many stories of a 
very interesting character. We shall begin with 
the North and mention one or two Eskimo tales. 

The water had poured itself over the earth, so that every- 
thing was convulsed with terror. The habitations of men 
were swept away, the wind tore them. They tied many 
boats together, side by side. The waves overflowed the 
mountains, a great wind drove them over the earth. The 

* For this and for the foregoing incident from the Edda, see 
Grimm, " Deutsche Mythol.," 546. 

f Livingstone, " Missionary Travels and Researches in South 
Africa," p. 353. Harper & Bro., 1858. 

(424) 



Eskimo and Indian Tales 



men dried themselves in the sun. The world and the earth 
vanished, men died by reason of a frightful heat, also the 
waves killed them. Men trembled, they shuddered, the 
uprooted trees were driven here and there at the pleasure 
of the waves. The men who trembled from the cold 
bound their barks together. Ah! Under a tent which they 
erected they cowered together. Then one man, called the 
" son of the owl," threw his bow into the flood. " Wind, 
stop blowing," he called; "it is enough." Then this man 
threw his earrings into the water. Then came the end.* 

Another Eskimo tale is interesting as showing 
how such myths may arise : 

A long time ago the sea suddenly began to rise until it 
covered the whole land. The water rose till it covered the 
tops of the mountains, and the ice floated over them. When 
the water receded, the ice remained stranded and formed 
the peaks of the mountains. Many mussels, fish, seals, 
and whales remained on dry land, where their skeletons can 
still be seen. A great many Eskimos died in this flood, 
but many others, who at the beginning of the flood took 
refuge in their kajaks, were rescued. f 

As we have seen in Europe in our century, the 
presence of fossils, bones, etc., at a great height 
above the water, is one of the motives of many 
Flood stories. 

The Flood stories of the American Indians in 
all parts of the continent, from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, are so numerous that I shall be able to 
mention only a tiny fraction of them. The dif- 
ficulty with most Indian traditions is that they 
were collected at a late date, long after the 
greater number of Indian tribes had felt the con- 
tact of Christianity. We are therefore not sur- 
prised to find in many of these stories echoes of 

* Petitot, " Vocabulaire frangaise-esquimau," Paris, 1876, 
xxxiv., quoted by Andree. 

f Franz Boas, " The Central Eskimo," Sixth Annual Report of 
the " Journal of Ethnology," 637, quoted by Andree. 



(425) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Genesis. It does not follow by any means, how- 
ever, because we find evident traces of Noah's 
Flood in these recitals, that the whole Indian 
story is borrowed. As a rule, we are justified 
in deducting only those elements that were un- 
mistakably taken from the Bible. The remainder 
in most cases will be found to be original and 
genuine. 

The Algonquins possessed traditions of the 
Creation and the Flood, written in their peculiar 
picture-writing, and this echo of Genesis from the 
forests and prairies of America is very interest- 
ing. 

In the beginning were great waters over all land. And 
over the waters were thick clouds, and there was God, the 
Creator, the First Being, eternal, almighty, invisible, God 
the Creator. He created great waters, great lands, and 
much air and heaven. He created the sun, moon and 
stars, etc.* 

This account of Creation is certainly taken 
from the Bible ; the story of the Flood, however, 
seems quite original. 

A long time ago came the mighty serpent (Maskanako), 
when men had become bad. The strong serpent was the 
enemy of the creatures, and they became confused and 
hated one another. Then they fought and destroyed one 
another and had no peace. And the little men (Mattapewi) 
fought with the keeper of the dead (Nihanlowit). Then 
the strong serpent resolved to destroy all men and creat- 
ures together. It brought the black snake and monsters, 
and raging waters. The raging waters spread over the 
mountains everywhere, destroying everything. On the 

* This picture-writing was published by E. G. Squier, who got 
it from G. S. Rafinesque, Rafinesque obtained the original bark 
copy from the remnant of the Delaware tribe on the White River 
in 1822, and there is no reason to doubt its genuineness. See 
" Historical and Mythological Traditions of the Algonquins, etc.," 
read before the New York Historical Society, quoted by Andree. 

(426) 



OjiBWAY Legend 



Turtle Island was Manabozho.. the grandfather of men and 
creatures. Born a creeper, he can move and live on Turtle 
Island. The men and creatures float about on the waters, 
and look everywhere for the back of the turtle (Tulapin). 
Of sea monsters were there many, and they destroyed many 
of (the men). Then the daughter of a spirit helped them 
into a boat, and all together cried out, " Come, help, Mana- 
bozho, the grandfather of all creatures, men, and turtles." 
All together on the turtle there, the men there, all were 
together. Greatly terrified, Manabozho commanded the 
turtle to restore all things. Then the waters ran back, 
mountain and plain were dried, and the great Evil One 
went somewhere else on the hollow path. 

In this curious myth there seems to be nothing 
taken from the Bible unless it be the serpent, 
" the enemy of the creatures." The combination 
of the snake and the tortoise reminds us much 
more of the mythology of India, in which the 
world itself is often conceived as a great tortoise 
swimming on the water, or else the tortoise car- 
ries the world on his back, aided by the serpent 
Sesha.* 

Among the Ojibways on Lake Superior the 
following story is related. It is perhaps the most 
elaborate of all the modern Flood traditions : 

Menaboshu, a demigod, was a great friend of the wolves, 
and a little wolf with whom he used to go hunting, was his 
special pet. Him he warned not to walk on the ice of the 
lake in which lived the great serpent king, Menaboshu's 
bitterest foe. But the little wolf, having his curiosity 
aroused by this warning, with some trepidation set out to 
walk on the ice of this lake. He came to the middle. 
There he broke through and drowned. In vain Mena- 
boshu waited for his little friend, wolf; he did not come. 
Then he mourned and lamented aloud and spent the rest 
of the winter sorrowing. But he knew well who had 
killed his little brother — the Serpent-King, to whom, in 
winter he could do nothing. When the spring came, 
Menaboshu went to the lake, where he discovered the tracks 

* See Tylor's " Early Hist, of Mankind," 340, 341. 
(427) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



of his little brother, and again he lamented loud. The 
Serpent- King heard it and lifted his horned head out of the 
water. " Now shall you atone for your misdeeds," thought 
Menaboshu, and turned himself into the stump of a tree 
which lay beside the lake. The Serpent-King and all the 
serpents were puzzled over this stump which they had never 
seen before on the shore, and stormed angrily about it. 
A serpent twenty ells long wrapped his body round the 
trunk and pressed it and squeezed it in order to see 
whether anything living was inside it. But though Mena- 
boshu felt all his limbs cracking, he held out and gave no 
sign. That satisfied the serpents, and they all lay down 
on the beach to sleep. Then Menaboshu crept out of his 
stump and shot the Serpent-King and three of his sons. 
The other snakes, however, slipped away into the lake, 
lamenting. They made a bitter lamentation, and scattered 
the contents of their medicine sacks on the shore, and 
around the wood. Then the water began to turn in 
troubled circles and to swell. The heaven was clothed 
with black clouds, and mighty streams of rain shot down 
from above. The whole country, half the earth, was over- 
whelmed, at last the whole wide world. Poor Menaboshu 
flew away, terrified to death. He hopped from one moun- 
tain to another like a scared squirrel, and knew not where 
to lay himself, for the swelling waves followed him every- 
where. At last he discovered a very high mountain, on 
which he found refuge. But even this mountain was soon 
submerged. At its extreme apex stood a pine tree, a hun- 
dred ells high, and up this tree Menaboshu climbed. He 
climbed to the very top, the water close behind him. It 
reached him, it rose to his belt, to his shoulders, to his 
lips. Then suddenly it stood still, either because the ser- 
pents had exhausted their magic, or because they thought 
it was enough, and that Menaboshu never could have es- 
caped. But Menaboshu, uncomfortable as his situation 
was, held out and stood for five days and nights on his 
pine tree, tormenting himself in vain as to how he could 
help himself. 

At last, on the sixth day, he saw a solitary bird. It was 
a loon swimming on the water. He called it to him and 
said to it, " Brother Loon, do me a favor, and dive down 
deep, and see if you can find the earth, without which I 
cannot live, or if it is altogether drunk up." The loon did 
it; he dove many times, but he could not go deep enough, 
and he came back without attaining his object, bringing 
the sad tidings that the earth was not to be found. Mena- 
boshu was nearly in despair. 

On the next day he saw the stiffened body of a muskrat, 



(428) 



Mexican Culture 



knocked around by the waves. He fished it out, and by 
his warm breath he brought it back to Hfe. Then he said 
to it: " Little brother rat, neither of us can live without the 
earth. Dive into the water, and if you can find it, bring 
me some earth. If it is only three grains of sand, I shall 
be able to make something out of them." The obliging 
animal dived immediately, and after a long time reap- 
peared. But it was dead and floated on the water. Mena- 
boshu took it up and discovered in one of its little paws a 
couple of grains of sand. He took them, dried them 
in his hand in the sun, and then blew them away on the 
water, and where they fell they floated and grew, in con- 
sequence of the hidden strength of the earth, or through 
Menaboshu's magic breath. First little islands arose, 
which quickly united and grew great. At last Menaboshu 
was able to spring from his uncomfortable seat in the tree 
to one of the islands. He sailed around on it as if on a 
raft. Half the other islands grew together, and at last be- 
came great lands. Menaboshu then became creator and 
ruler of the new earth.* 

This fine and spirited story does not appear 
to contain any Biblical element, unless it be, as 
Andree points out, the sending of the animals to 
find land. In another version of the narrative 
which I have seen, the episode of the animals does 
not occur. It will be noticed that Menaboshu 
does not build a ship. 

I pass over many other interesting Indian 
legends in order to notice the traditions of the 
semi-civilized American peoples. It is well 
known that the Mexicans at an early date at- 
tained a degree of culture unknown to the other 
aborigines of North America. While the In- 
dian tribes, ignorant of almost all the arts, 
roamed over the prairie or through the forest, 
with the loosest social organization, the Mexi- 
cans built cities, temples and palaces, held courts 

*J. G. Kohl, " Kitschi-Gami," i. 321 ff. Also Schoolcraft, 
*' The Indian and His Wigwam," New York, 1848, p. 204, 
quoted by Andree. 



(429) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of law, drilled armies and practised many of the 
arts of civilization. They improved the rude 
picture-writing of the Indian tribes so much as 
to be able to use it for the preservation of their 
history, setting down at least names, dates and 
places accompanied by pictures that would en- 
able the historian to recall the events which they 
portrayed. From these picture-writings, which 
Lord Kingsborough ''' spent a fortune in engrav- 
ing and pubHshing under the belief that the Mex- 
icans represented the Ten Tribes of Israel, we 
derive for the most part our knowledge of their 
traditions of the Flood. I will give some of the 
more important of these traditions first, and will 
then discuss their genuineness. First it should 
be said that the Mexicans, like the Hindus and 
the Aryan nations generally, divide the history of 
the world into four epochs, each ending in a 
world-catastrophe. The first age is the Age of 
Giants, who were destroyed by hunger or by 
earthquakes. At the end of the second age the 
world was destroyed by a fire. At the end of the 
third age the world was destroyed by a hurricane. 
The fourth age, which was the Age of Water, 
ended with the great Flood. In all the Flood 
stories current among the different nations of 
Mexico, there is some hero like Noah who 
was saved with his wife in a vessel, and who after- 
ward continued the propagation of the race. 
One of the commonest of these Flood legends is 
that associated with the hero Coxcox, which 
attracted the attention of Alexander von Hum- 
boldt.f 

*" Antiquities of Mexico," London, 1831-1848. 

f " Sites des Cordilleras," etc., Paris, 1869, pp. 338-419. 

(430) 



Genuineness op Mexican Traditions 



At the time of the Age of Water (Atonaitiuh) a great 
flood covered the whole earth, and men were turned into 
fishes. Only one man and one woman escaped by conceal- 
ing themselves in the hollow stem of a cypress. The man 
was Coxcox, his wife was called Xochequetzal. When the 
waters had somewhat abated, they landed their ship on the 
peak of Mount Colhuacan. There they multiplied and 
gathered their children around them, but they were all 
born dumb. Then a dove came, gave them tongues and 
innumerable languages.* Only fifteen of the descendants 
of Coxcox, who later became heads of families, spoke 
the same language, or could understand each other. From 
these fifteen descended the Toltecs, the Aztecs, and the 
Acolhaus. 

-In Michoucan a tradition is preserved in which 
the name of the rescued man is Tizpi. He not 
only saved his wife, but, having a large vessel, he 
also placed in it his children, different animals and 
provisions. As the waters receded he sent out a 
vulture to look for earth and to bring him word 
of the dry land. But the vulture sated itself on 
the corpses and did not return. Tizpi then sent 
out other birds, among them the humming bird. 
When the sun began to shine and the earth grew 
green again, Tizpi saw that his ship lay on the 
mount of Colhuacan, and disembarked, f 

If these two narratives could be proved to be 
of genuinely native origin, as Lenormant sup- 
posed, J if they were correct translations of Mex- 
ican picture-writing, made before the advent of 
the Spanish, they would profoundly change our 
present ideas of the Flood, of Mexican civiliza- 
tion and of the history of the human race gen- 

* Evidently a confusion of Noah's dove with the story of the 
Tower of Babel. 

f Both these traditions related by Alexander von Humboldt, 
" Vues des Cordilleres," vol. ii., p. 177 ff., Eng. trans., 1814. 
Also Clavigero, " Storia Antica del Messico," vol. iii., p. 151. 

X " Essai de Berose," p. 283. 

(43^) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

erally. For if these writings were genuine we 
should have to suppose that the main features of 
the Bibhcal Flood story were known to the most 
diverse nations of the earth. That would be a 
good deal for a humming bird to accomplish. 
But, I repeat, the series of coincidences between 
the Mexican Flood myths (of which I have given 
only two versions) and our story, could not have 
arisen except from a common tradition or from 
direct borrowing. Lord Kingsborough had 
more reason than most enthusiasts for thinking 
he had discovered at last the long-lost Ten Tribes. 
As long as the authenticity and correctness of the 
Mexican narratives were entertained, the Mexi- 
can Flood myths, of which there are other equally 
striking versions, proved a stumbling stone to a 
rational comprehension of the Flood. That po- 
sition, however, is no longer maintained by those 
who have most carefully examined the subject.* 
It has been pointed out by Bancroft f that none 
of the earliest Spanish writers who concern 
themselves with Mexican mythology at the time 
of the conquest describe Flood legends, which 
is a suspicious circumstance. Bancroft also as- 
serts, on the word of Don Jose Fernando Rami- 
rez, that the interpretations of the picture-writ- 
ings collected by von Humboldt, Clavigero and 
Kingsborough are incorrect, and that they have 
been falsely translated. There is one docu- 
mentary account of the Mexican Flood myth 
whose interpretation does not appear to be ques- 
tioned, that is the celebrated Codex Chimalpo- 
poca. Unfortunately, it is not old enough to be 

*Girard de Rialle, " I.a Mythologie comparee," i. 352 ff. 
f " Native Races of the Pacific States," iii. p. 68. 

(432) 



Codex Chimalpopoca 



free from Christian influence, for though com- 
posed in the Aztec language, it is written in 
Spanish characters. It is supposed to have been 
reduced to writing by an anonymous native 
author and was copied by IxtUlxochitl and pub- 
Hshed in part by Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg.* 
This is de Bourbourg's translation : 

When the age Nahui-atl (the Fourth Age of Water) 
came, four hundred years elapsed: then came two hundred 
years more, then seventy-six years. Then human beings 
were destroyed, they were drowned and turned into fish. 
The sky approached the water. On a single day everything 
was destroyed, and the day, Mahui Xochitl, or Four 
Flowers, devoured all there was of our flesh. And this 
year was that of Ce-Calli, or One House. And on the 
first day, Nahui-Atl, everything was lost. The mountains 
themselves were destroyed in the water, and the waters re- 
mained calm for fifty-two springtides. Yet, toward the end 
of the year (the god) Titlacahuan warned a certain Nata, 
and his wife Nena, saying, " Make no wine (i.e., agave, 
pulque), but hollow out a great cypress and get into it, 
and when in the month Tocoztli the water begins to ap- 
proach the sky "... They got in, and as Titlacahuan 
shut the door after them, he said to them, " Thou shalt eat 
but a single ear of corn, and thy wife one also." But as 
soon as they were ready they wished to get out, for the 
waters were quiet and their tree trunk no longer moved. 
And as they opened it they saw the fishes. Then they 
made a fire by rubbing pieces of wood together. The gods 
Citlalliuicue and Citlallatonac, who looked down, said: 
" O, divine lord, what is this fire down there? Why 
do they thus smoke the sky? " Then Titlacahuan de- 
scended and began to scold, saying: ''Who has made this 
fire here? " And he seized the fishes and moulded their 
tails, and shaped their heads and they were made into dogs 
(Chichime, a satire aimed at the Chichimecs or barbarians 
of the north).-!* 

This story, also, which Lenormant regarded as 

* J. C. Brasseur de Bourbourg, " Histoire des nations civili- 
se'es du Mexique," Paris, 1857. Episode of flood in Appendix, 
p. 425. 

f Lenormant, *' Begin, of Hist.," 462, 463 ; Andree, 107, 108. 



28 (433) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of '' purely aboriginal character," in the parts 
that remind us of Genesis, namely, the warning of 
the god, the command to build a ship, etc., bears 
unmistakably a Biblical imprint. The single 
statement that Titlacahuan " shut the door after 
them " is enough to prove the Bibhcal origin of 
the story. For not only are those words the di- 
rect echo of Genesis, but they are wholly out of 
place in this narrative. What sort of door would 
a canoe made out of a hollow cypress be likely to 
have? We are therefore led to the conclusion 
that all those features in the Mexican Flood 
myths which strikingly remind us of Genesis are 
the result of Christian influence after the Spanish 
invasion. What makes this probable is the fact 
that none of these traditions, in their present 
form, is older than the conquest. I by no means 
wish to imply, however, that the Mexicans had 
no native Flood myths ; on the contrary, all their 
Flood traditions which I have seen bear distinct 
marks of originaHty. I ascribe to Christian in- 
fluence only those features which are obviously 
taken from Genesis, and which, if admitted to be 
of native origin, would cause us to modify our 
whole conception of human history. Making 
these deductions, the Mexican Flood stories are 
really no more remarkable than those we have 
discovered in many other parts of the world, and 
they cannot fairly be urged as a proof of the 
Asiatic origin of Mexican culture, whatever sup- 
port may be found for that view on other 
grounds. There are now only two other groups 
of tradition which I wish to mention, and then 
we shall have touched at least on the most im- 
portant of the Flood legends of the earth. They 

(434) 



POPOL VUH 



are the traditions of Guatemala in Central Amer- 
ica and those of Peru. 

The Flood legends of Guatemala are impor- 
tant, not only on account of the comparatively 
high civilization and intelligence of its people, but 
because they are recorded in native writing of 
some antiquity. The document to which I allude 
is called Popol Vuh (Book of the People). It was 
written in the Quiche language, by an unknown 
writer, shortly after the introduction of Chris- 
tianity into Guatemala, and was translated into 
Spanish by the Dominican Ximenes, at the be- 
ginning of the eighteenth century.* According 
to Popol Vuh, after the gods had created animals 
they became discontented, because they could 
neither speak nor honor their makers. Accord- 
ingly the gods next created men out of clay. 
These men also were imperfect, because they 
could neither turn their heads, speak, nor under- 
stand anything. So the gods destroyed their im- 
perfect work in a flood. Then followed a second 
creation of human beings, in which a man was 
made of wood and a woman of gum or rosin. 
The second race was better than the first, but in 
its nature very animal. Men spoke, but in an ut- 
terly incomprehensible manner, and they showed 
no gratitude to the gods. Then Hurricane, the 
heart of Heaven, let burning pitch fall on the 
earth, and an earthquake came, through which 
all living men, with few exceptions, were de- 
stroyed. The few who were spared were turned 

* First publication of the Spanish text, by Karl Scherzer, Wien, 
1857. The original text with French translation by Brasseur de 
Bourbourg, "Popol Vuh, Le livre sacre et les mythes . . . 
des Quiches," Paris, 1861. See also Stoll, " Zur Ethnographic 
der Republik Guatemala," Zurich, 1884, quoted by Andree. 



(435) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

into apes. At last the gods formed a third race 
of men out of white and yellow maize, who were 
so perfect that the gods themselves were afraid of 
them. The gods therefore took away some of 
their good qualities, and so they became normal 
men, from whom the Quiches descended.* 

This story, so far as one can see, is absolutely 
original. There is nothing in it suggestive of 
Genesis. 

The Peruvians, as is well known, were among 
the most cultured of American aborigines. What 
is strange is that their civihzation appears to have 
nothing in common with the civilization of Mex- 
ico.f In spite of Lenormant's assertion to the 
contrary,$ Peru possesses several genuine Flood 
stories, one of which is as follows: It is stated 
that the whole surface of the earth was altered 
by a great overflow of water, while the sun for 
five days was concealed. All living beings were 
annihilated, except one shepherd, his wife and 
flock. For several days before the flood began 
the shepherd noticed that his llamas were sad, 
and that all night long they kept their eyes fixed 
on the course of the stars. Very much surprised, 
he asked the gentle animals what the meaning of 
it was, and why they fixed their glance on a 
group of six stars which seemed to be a sign to 
them. The llamas informed him that the earth 
was about to be destroyed by a flood, and that if 

* Quoted from Scherzer and de Bourbourg-. 

f " The culture of Peru is so independent (of Mexico) that no 
traces of mutual influence have been discovered." — Dr. Edmund 
Buckley, in his provokingly brief sketch of American religions in 
Chantepie de la Saussaye's "Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte," 
Leipzig, 1897, i. 32. 

1(. " Beginning's of History," 434. 

(436) 



Peruvian Flood Tradition 



he wished to save himself he must fly with his 
family and flock to the top of the highest moun- 
tain of the neighborhood. He did so, and 
climbed to the summit of Mount Ancasmarca, 
where a multitude of other animals were already 
assembled. Scarcely had he attained the moun- 
tain when the sea left its banks and with a fright- 
ful roar broke over the land. As now the waters 
rose higher and higher, flooding plains and val- 
leys, the mountain rose with them and swam 
like a ship on the waves. This lasted five days, 
while the sun remained hidden and the earth 
veiled in darkness. On the fifth day, however, 
the waters began to diminish, and the earth was 
peopled anew by the descendants of the shep- 
herd.* 

This story appears to be quite original. With 
the exception of two mythical incidents, the float- 
ing of the mountain and the renewal of the earth 
by the descendants of the shepherd, it is quite an 
accurate account of an inundation caused by 
earthquake. The brief duration of the flood, the 
warning of the llamas, the obscuration of the sun, 
and even the floating of the mountain, all point to 
a serious seismic disturbance. Twice in little 
more than a century the coast of Peru has been 
visited by fearful earthquakes (1746 and 1868). 
Gigantic waves were raised, by which the coast 
was inundated, harbors destroyed and cities com- 
pletely overwhelmed. This story is plainly based 
on the recollection of a catastrophe in ancient 
times similar to the earthquake of 1746, when 
Lima was destroyed. 

* Bancroft, " Native Races of the Pacific States," v. 15. Also 
Brasseur de Bourbourg', in Landa, " Relacion," xxx. 



(437) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Twenty : 

Origin of Flood Myths of Mankind 

IN our last chapter we discussed the diffusion of 
the Flood myth. We saw that, although it is 
one of the most widely disseminated beliefs of 
mankind, it is not a universal tradition, as many 
persons have supposed. Whole countries and 
even continents have either no Flood stories or 
else few and adopted legends. Now that we have 
definitely renounced belief in a universal destruc- 
tion of the world by water, and with it the be- 
lief that all these traditions rest on the recollec- 
tion of a common catastrophe, it becomes more 
than ever incumbent on us to explain them. I 
approach this task, however, with a heavy heart. 
(Dne need only glance at the various hypotheses 
advanced to account for the legends of the Flood 
to be assured that here is a labyrinth of myth, 
history and speculation, through which as yet 
the guiding thread fails. If we think that this 
labyrinth can be taken by storm we fail com- 
pletely to comprehend its intricacy. To build 
up a glittering theory based on a few catch- 
words to which all human belief is made to bend, 
is not much better. You may remember Balzac's 
definition of German scholarship. '' A German 
scholar," says Balzac, " is a man who finds a lit- 
tle hole in the ground which he proceeds to con- 

(438) 



D 



ATA 



vert into an abyss, at the bottom of which is to be 
found not truth, but one German." At the outset 
of my task a solemn warning rises before me in 
the monumental work of Franz von Schwarz,* 
upon which he cogitated twelve years before 
reducing it to writing. In this vast piece of 
labor Schwarz attempts to account for the migra- 
tions of the whole human family in ancient and 
modern times by their Flood traditions. What- 
ever ethnological importance this work may pos- 
sess, it is of no value as a treatise on the' Flood 
tradition, because it rests on a false hypothesis, 
namely, that all Flood traditions come from the 
common recollection of a catastrophe which oc- 
curred in Turkestan f in pre-historic times. Such 
attempts will continue to be made as long as geol- 
ogists and ethnologists confine themselves ex- 
clusively to the physical aspect of the Flood 
tradition; but those who have grasped the real 
conditions of the problem may disregard works 
of this order. 

The data on which we have to reason are as 
follows : 

1. The existence of the Flood story among the 
most diverse races in ancient and modern times. 

2. The fact that no universal deluge has oc- 
curred. 

3. The fact that if a wide-spread destruction of 
the earth by water had occurred in primitive 
times, before the so-called dispersion of the na- 
tions, such an event would not now be remem- 
bered by lower races whose history goes back 
only a few generations. 

* " Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen," Stuttgart, 1894. 
fOp. cit., 5, 6, 7. 

(439) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

4. The fact that the Egyptians and Chinese, the 
nations which have most carefully preserved 
their ancient history, have no true Flood story. 

5. Certain curious resemblances in the Flood 
legends of remote peoples between which no his- 
torical connection can be established. 

From this last point, which is the most impor- 
tant for our purpose, I will set out. Modern 
science, whose business it is to trace separate 
events to a general law, will suspect that where 
so many traditions have arisen independently 
they are to be referred to one cause. Since no 
one prevailing, external cause is to be looked for 
among people so widely separated in time and 
space as the Babylonians, Australians, Eskimos 
and Peruvians, we must look for an internal cause, 
the minds of men at a certain stage of their devel- 
opment being apt to reason on the phenomena of 
nature in much the same way. In short, I sup- 
pose that the explanation of the innumerable 
Flood legends most popular among students of 
human tradition is that they are all myths arising 
from the attempts of man to explain regularly re- 
curring phenomena of nature. Even so conserva- 
tive a scholar as Max Miiller seems to adopt this 
view when he says : '' There are certain mytho- 
logical ideas, such as the deluge, for instance, 
which by their recurrence among many and 
widely separated nations, show that they did not 
arise from some isolated historical fact, as even 
Huxley seemed to imagine, but that they ex- 
pressed physical phenomena which occur and 
recur every year and all over the globe." * 

* " Contributions to the Science of Mythology," 2 vols., Long- 
mans, Green & Co., 1897, vol. i., p. 220. 

(440) 



Ether-Myth Theory 



This theory has certainly found able advo- 
cates, although as yet no adequate statement. 
One of the first writers on anthropology to re- 
solve the Flood story into a mere nature-myth 
was Schirren in his '' Wanderungen der Neusee- 
lander." * Schirren regards the Flood stories, 
especially those of New Zealand and other isl- 
ands of the Pacific, as an example of the all- 
revealing sun-myth. The flood of waters which 
overwhelms the earth, is the darkness that fills 
the sky, especially on cloudy days and nights, 
from which the sun escapes in his boat and in due 
time reappears. Since many of Schirren's views 
are now antiquated, I shall not take the time to 
discuss them, especially as a more acceptable 
form of his myth theory has been presented by 
Gerland in Waitz's great anthropology.f Ger- 
land transforms the sun-myth into what he calls 
an " ether-myth." The construction of this 
myth is as follows: The blue vault of heaven is 
conceived as a great sea in which the constella- 
tions appear to rise as mountains, islands and 
mythical monsters. The sun, moon and stars are 
conceived as canoes swimming in the flood, or as 
a man and his wife and children escaping from the 
thick clouds, darkness, etc., that blot out the sky. 
It is supposed that from this familiar picture in 
the heavens the idea of a flood on earth was sug- 
gested, and that, just as the heavens are covered 
with clouds, so the earth was covered with water ; 
and as sun, moon and stars escape and reappear, 
so some chosen man with his wife and children 
made his escape from the waters of a flood. It is 

*Riga, 1856. 

f " Anthropologie der Naturvolker," 6 vols., Leipzig-, 1872. 



(441) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

pointed out that such phenomena in the sky are 
presented constantly all over the world, and that 
to men of a certain stage of culture they may very 
well suggest the same thing, namely, a universal 
flood in which only a few persons escape death. 
The last proposition, however, is by no means 
self-evident. On the contrary, it would be a 
mere piece of unscientific dogmatism to assert 
that all savage, barbarous, and semi-civilized 
races regarded the sky as a sea, and the sun, 
moon and stars as a man with his wife and chil- 
dren escaping in boats. If even one nation en- 
tertained this belief it ought to be shown that this 
nation transferred its conception of a flood in the 
sky to that of a flood on earth. And even if it 
could be proved that one people actually made 
this transference, it would not follow that to all 
other peoples so strange an idea would occur. 

Therefore, unless we are to take refuge in vapid 
theories, the case is one in which plain and con- 
vincing evidence ought to be afforded, and to 
this evidence I now pass. The two best state- 
ments that I know of the ether-myth as an ex- 
planation of the flood legend, are Gerland's in 
Waitz' '' Anthropologic " and Canon Cheyne's 
in the article '^ Deluge " in the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica and in the new Encyclopaedia Bib- 
lica. Gerland confines his argument to the 
group of islands loosely called Polynesia, while 
Canon Cheyne's articles, though necessarily 
brief, are more general in their application. As 
Cheyne evidently depends on Gerland a good 
deal, and as he expressly states that '' the most 
plausible arguments for the celestial deluge 
theory are derived from the Polynesian mythol- 

(442) 



Criticism of Gerland's Argument 

ogy," * I shall glance at Gerland first. Gerland 
begins his discussion by remarking that the in- 
habitants of Polynesia called the Milky Way a 
long, blue, cloud-eating whale (which Foster, 
however, translates ''sail"). "So," Gerland con- 
tinues, " we have here the conception of the sky 
as a sea, as in so many other places. Further, one 
may mention the Hawaiian myth of Hiralii, ac- 
cording to which the moon caused a powerful 
overflow." " According to all this, it would not 
be too bold if we derived from this source all 
flood myths, which in Polynesia are innumerable, 
and characterizing them as myths which refer to 
the vault of heaven, not to the earth." f 

This may not be too bold for Gerland, who has 
an immense store of Polynesian lore at command, 
but it appears to be altogether too bold a de- 
duction from any facts he has as yet vouchsafed 
to communicate. Suppose the Polynesians do 
regard the Milky Way as a whale, and even that 
the New Zealanders, as Gerland asserts, saw in 
one of the constellations a full-rigged ship — the 
Babylonians saw in the constellations a virgin and 
a crab, but it does not follow that they regarded 
the sky as a girl's school or a crab pond. Even 
granting that the cloud-eating whale proves the 
belief that the sky is a sea, it does not follow from 
this that the earth is visited by a flood, nor does 
the Hawaiian tradition that the moon caused a 
powerful overflow prove anything in itself be- 
yond the fact that the moon influences the tides. 
Gerland, however, after criticising Schirren for 
referring the Flood stories too exclusively to the 

*Encyc. Brit., vol. vii., p. 57. 

f Waitz, op. cit., vol. vi., pp. 268-273. 

(443) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

myth of the setting sun, comments on a few Poly- 
nesian Flood legends. He brings forward only 
two or three incidents which have any bearing 
on his theory. He cites the narrative of the fish- 
erman who caught the sea-god by the hair, and 
calls attention to the fact that the little island, 
Toa-Marama, only two feet high, means " moon- 
tree." This at least is a connection between the 
flood and the moon, but it is very indirect. Ger- 
land sees in this *' moon-tree " a counterpart of 
the Yggdrasil, or world-tree of Germanic myth- 
ology, which had its roots in Hell and its branches 
in Heaven. This may well be, as the myth of the 
world-tree is found all through the Pacific isl- 
ands from Borneo to New Zealand.* In the 
story, however, nothing is said about the fisher- 
man climbing up to the moon, and Toa-Marama 
is not a mythical spot, but a small island to the 
east of Raiatea. Further than this, we can prove 
conclusively that the moon-tree as a means of 
escape has at present nothing to do with the 
story of the Flood. For, as Ellis testifies, when 
the inhabitants are asked why such a low-lying 
island was not submerged, they know not what 
to say, but point to the corals and mussels em- 
bedded high on the mountains as a proof that 
the Flood was there.f 

Gerland's second example is taken from a 
Flood story of Tahiti, and is based on the cir- 
cumstance that when a man and his wife are flee- 
ing from a flood, the husband wishes to take ref- 
uge on a mountain called Owfena. The wife ob- 
jects, and says "No, we, too, on the mount round 

* Tylor, " Early History of Mankind," p. 354. 
f Ellis, " Polynesian Researches," ii. p. 58, ist ed. 

(444) 



Ether-Myth Not Well Founded 

as a breast, on Pito-Hiti," which ElHs translates 
'' alone," and which Gerland regards as a myth- 
ical mountain. I confess I can see little to the 
point in this allusion. The story goes on to say 
that after the subsidence of the waters, the man 
and his wife were threatened by a new danger 
from falling stones and trees which had been 
thrown high in the air. This would lead one to 
suspect a volcanic eruption. 

From these slender premises Gerland con- 
cludes that '' to explain these sagas of the Flood 
one must think of rain clouds covering the heav- 
en with their dark water, bringing sun, moon 
and stars into greatest danger." * Unfortunately 
for this statement, EUis, that thorough observer 
of all things Polynesian, on whom Gerland him- 
self frequently depends, expressly asserts, '' I 
have frequently conversed with people on the 
subject [of the flood], both in the northern and 
the southern groups, but never could learn that 
they have any account of the windows of heaven 
being opened or the rain having descended." f 
It appears to me that an extensive idea was never 
reared on a slighter foundation of fact. It 
may very well be that more pertinent facts are 
forthcoming, but certainly without a good deal 
of encouragement, one would hardly be tempted 
to carry this sort of thing much further. Ger- 
land confined his observations and theories to 
the Polynesian Islands. He invited other more 
ambitious scholars, however, to apply his ether- 
myth theory to all other Flood traditions. This 
invitation Canon Cheyne accepts in his article on 

*0p. cit., vi. 272, 273, 

f Op. cit., i. p. 394, 2d ed., in 4 vols., London, 1831. 

(445) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

^^^^■— —————— ^—■—■^^^^^——— ■——^™^ 

" The Deluge " in the Encyclopsedia Britannica. 
In itself this circumstance should lead us to treat 
the theory with respect. I fully share the ad- 
miration of the English-speaking world for our 
greatest living Old Testament scholar and critic. 
In this case, however, we are concerned not with 
admiration for men's persons, but with facts. 
Does Canon Cheyne in his brief but comprehen- 
sive article adduce any new facts in support of 
Gerland's theory of the ether-myth, which he un- 
hesitatingly accepts? It is true. Canon Cheyne 
rather stops the mouth of the adversary by his 
definition of a Deluge, '' by which," he says, '' I 
mean to exclude the theory which would account 
for Deluge stories as exaggerations of local in- 
undations," and he states the ether-myth theory 
with a confidence that might well cause a layman 
to hesitate in attacking it. This, however, I am 
not doing. I repeat, I should be perfectly will- 
ing to accept that theory on sufficient grounds, 
by which I mean a convincing evidence of 
pertinent facts. I do not regard it as evi- 
dence merely to say, '^ It is agreed by my- 
thologists that the exclusive subjects of really 
primitive traditional stories are frequently recur- 
ring natural phenomena." When we come to 
matters of fact we find the evidence very slender, 
and not always unimpeachable. Canon Cheyne 
repeats Gerland's arguments on the Polynesian 
myths without adding anything new to them. 
Then he passes to the Babylonian Flood story, on 
which his criticisms do not appear to be very 
happy, although it is to be remembered that his 
article was written before 1878. Relying on the 
not always sate guidance of M. Lenormant and 

(446) 



Cheyne's Criticisms 



Dr. A. H. Sayce, Canon Cheyne assumes that the 
ideographic symbol for Sit-napistim (or Par- 
napistim), which he calls Tamzi, but which is 
usually written Ud-zi,* or Ut,t means " Sun-of- 
Life." Jensen, however, questions this on the 
ground that Ut is not preceded by the determina- 
tive of the sun, and that such a name for Sit- 
napistim would be meaningless. The father of 
Sit-napistim, Ubara-Tutu, or Kidin-Marduk, 
Cheyne translates " Splendor-of-Sunset," but 
according to Schrader,J Jastrow,§ and others, it 
means only '' servant," or " client," of Tutu, who 
is identified with Marduk. So most of Canon 
Cheyne's other remarks on this story fall to the 
ground. '' The Flood is a rain flood, and the 
' father of the rain ' (Job, xxxviii. 28) is the ce- 
lestial ocean, which in the original myth must 
have been itself the Deluge, and the ship is like 
that in which the Egyptian sun-god voyages in 
the sea of ether. The mountain on which the sur- 
vivors come to land was originally (as in Poly- 
nesia) the great mythic mountain . . . which 
joins the earth to the sky and serves as an axis 
to the celestial vault." There is little truth in 
these statements. The Flood, as I shall soon 
show, was not caused by rain alone. Professor 
Cheyne may have knowledge of the ship in which 
the Egyptian sun-god travelled which I do not 
possess, but I never heard that he sailed the sky 
in a house-boat six stories high with compart- 
ments. Lastly, whatever may have been Berosus' 
conception of the landing place of the ark, the 
version contained in Izdubar speaks of Mt. Nisir, 

*Schrader, " K. A. T.," p. 65. f Jensen, " Cos. der Bab.," 384. 
X Schrader, " K. A. T.,"p. 67. § " Relig-. of Bab.," p. 488. 



(447) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

or rather a mountain in the land of Nisir. The 
mountain of Nisir, far from being '' the mythical 
Mountain of the East, which unites the earth to 
the sky," was a range of very moderate height, 
east of the Tigris, beyond the Lower Zab, in lati- 
tude 35 °-36°, as we learn from an inscription of 
Ashurnasirbal, who tells us how he marched 
with an army to the land of Nisir, fought with the 
inhabitants, and pursued them into these very 
mountains.* 

The only other piece of evidence that Canon 
Cheyne mentions is the fish in the Hindu version 
of the Flood contained in the Mahabharata, 
" whose horn," he thinks, *' reminds us of other 
horned deities whose solar origin is acknowl- 
edged." In reply to this it may be said that if, 
as Canon Cheyne believes, this Hindu story is of 
Babylonian origin, the fish-god is not a solar 
deity, but Ea, the god of the deep, who is usually 
represented in the form of a fish. We also notice 
in the various Hindu recensions of the story how 
the horn of this fish grows. From an ordinary 
horned fish in the Satapatha Brahmana it be- 
comes, in the Bhagavata Purana,t a " golden fish 
with a horn a million yojanas long." In this ver- 
sion the fish begins to look like the sun, but we 
must remember that this is the latest form of the 
Hindu tradition. To this I will only add that if 
the Babylonian Flood story had been based on a 
solar myth, we might have expected a solar deity, 
rather than Sit-napistim, to be the hero of it. I 
should not have commented on views presented 

*Schrader, " K. A. T.," p. 75, and " Cuneiform Inscriptions of 
West. Asia," vol. i. pi. 20. 

f Muir's " Orig. Sanskt. Texts," i. p. 210. 

(448) 



Ether-Myth Theory Untenable 

so long ago were it not that they stand in the 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, and that they are not 
withdrawn in Cheyne's article in the Encyclopae- 
dia Biblica. In his new article Canon Cheyne 
reiterates Gerland's theory, though apparently 
he tries to combine the ether-myth with Dr. 
Brinton's theory of the Four Ages of the world. 
He calls attention to the fact that in the poem of 
Izdubar, only Shamash, the sun-god, can cross 
the sea in which Hes the Island of the Blessed. 
As the sea is plainly the mythical ocean which 
surrounds the world, this in itself is not surpris- 
ing; nor did Sit-napistim make the voyage in his 
ship. He was supernaturally translated. Canon 
Cheyne also quotes from Brinton examples of 
Flood legends of the New World in which birds 
and a muskrat assist in rebuilding the earth. 
This, however, has nothing to do with the ether- 
myth. 

For the present, therefore, I lay this explana- 
tion aside. It is by no means improbable that the 
view of the heavens described by Gerland con- 
tributed to the formation of Flood legends. We 
know that many nations did regard the sky as a 
sea, and it is not impossible that the sight of the 
luminaries overwhelmed by clouds may have sug- 
gested the overwhelming of the earth by water. 
It is also possible that more than one Flood story 
bears evidence of solar origin, and Canon Cheyne 
has overlooked the best example of all; namely, 
the Algonquin hero Manabozho, who is plainly a 
solar deity. But to conclude from such slight 
and questionable evidence as Gerland and Cheyne 
ofifer, that all Flood stories are derived from this 
one source is, to say the least, premature. 

29 (44Q) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Within the past year another mythological ex- 
planation of the Flood legend has been presented 
by Usener,* which gains somewhat the same goal 
by a different route. Usener devotes himself 
primarily to the Flood traditions of Greece. 
Whatever may be thought of the success of his 
attempt to account for the Flood myth, no one 
will deny that he has executed a beautiful piece of 
work, and I think most of his readers will be sur- 
prised to learn the volume and variety of the 
Greek traditions of the Flood. The very copious- 
ness of Usener's illustrations, for which he seems 
to have exhausted classical mythology, renders it 
impossible for me to do justice to his presenta- 
tion, and I must confine myself strictly to his 
main contention. Usener, while not able to dis- 
cover evidences of the Flood tradition in Greek 
literature earlier than about 600 B.C., regards 
the legend not as a Semitic loan but as indige- 
nous to Greece. He explains the difficulty 
of its late appearance by supposing that it was 
long cherished by the common people in out-of- 
the-way places before it became a theme of litera- 
ture. This, however, hardly explains the igno- 
rance of Hesiod, that master of folk lore, or the 
fact that the Flood story is the theme of no im- 
portant Greek poem. Usener begins his argu- 
ment by an elaborate study of the name of Deu- 
calion {^evnaXioDv, or ^evnaXoz), which may be 
divided thus, Aev-xaXo^. The first portion of the 
word he takes to be Asv?, the Spartan and Boeo- 
tian form of Zeviy and the second portion, JiaXo?, 
he regards as an old Greek diminutive corre- 

* " Die Sintfluthsagen, untersucht von Hermann Usener," 
Bonn, 1899. 

(450) 



GrREEK Legends of Divine Children 

sponding to the Latin cuius. Deucalion, then, is 
Httle Zeus, just as Herakles is Httle hero. Hera- 
kles is an example of a man who, by the develop- 
ment of perfect strength worthily employed in 
life, after death was raised to the gods. Deuca- 
lion, who was saved from the Flood in an ark, is 
little Zeus (das Gotterknablein), and is to be com- 
pared with the infant Zeus of Crete. He is a god 
who has sunk to the rank of a hero, only to be 
exalted again among the gods. His escape from 
the Flood in an ark is on a par with numerous 
Greek stories which relate how certain divine 
children were exposed to the sea in chests, from 
which they were afterward rescued. 

Perhaps the most celebrated of these narra- 
tives is the story of Perseus. Akresios, King of 
Argos, having been warned by an oracle that his 
daughter Danae would give birth to a son who 
would cause his death, confined Danae in a sub- 
terranean chamber fitted with brazen plates. 
Zeus, however, passed through the roof of this 
vault in a shower of golden rain. From the union 
of Zeus and Danae Perseus was born, and re- 
mained concealed with his mother until he was 
three or four years old. When Akresios became 
aware of Perseus' existence he caused Danae and 
her child to be placed in a chest and the chest to 
be thrown into the sea, where it drifted to the 
rocky island of Seriphos. Perseus became a 
great hero; in fact, he is a solar deity. 

Quite similar is the story of Auge, who bore 
Telephos to Herakles, in consequence of which 
her father, Aleos, caused Auge and her child to 
be thrown into the sea in a chest. They were 
driven to the coast of Mysia, where the ruler of 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the land received them and made Auge his wife. 
Auge, as her name impUes, was a Hght goddess. 

Other heroes, Hke CEdipus and even the god 
Dionysos, underwent the same fate. They were 
thrown into the sea in chests, from which they 
were rescued; they became great heroes, and 
afterward were raised to the gods. 

This, then, is the nucleus of the Flood story, not 
only in Greece, but also elsewhere. A child who 
is the offspring of a god, or who, Hke Deucalion, 
is a god in the form of a hero, is exposed to the 
sea and is saved in a chest, after which he assumes 
a place among the heavenly gods. That the new- 
born child is sometimes taken to heaven is shown 
in the case of Dionysos. The voyage in the 
chest, however, is not a voyage from one part of 
this world to another, but from this world to 
another world. Hence the necessity of the pilot 
in the Flood story of Babylonia, and for the same 
reason Xisuthros' pilot was translated with him 
to guide him to another world. At bottom the 
Flood myth is the myth of the rising sun. The 
child exposed and tossed on the waters and after- 
wards raised to the gods, is the young sun rising 
out of the waves and mounting to heaven. Xisu- 
thros is translated immediately after his depart- 
ure from the ark. Sit-napistim is taken to the 
Island of the Blessed, etc. 

While I feel far from competent to discuss the 
wealth of mythological material that Usener has 
collected, there are a few points in his argument 
to which I may allude. 

A great deal is made to depend on the 
etymological significance of Deucalion's name. 
It would ill become me to say that Usener is not 

(452) 



Usener's Theory Criticised 



right, but a more natural derivation, together 
with a simpler explanation of Deucalion's con- 
nection with the Flood, is suggested in Roscher's 
Lexicon, where Deucalion is derived from Ssvgd^ 
moisten, and Pyrrha, from TTvppo?, the red earth. 
According to this view, Deucalion was the per- 
sonification of water and Pyrrha of the earth, 
and from their union came the Hellenes.''' Use- 
ner's theory fails altogether to account for 
Pyrrha. It also seems a little forced to place Deu- 
calion's escape in the chest on a par with the es- 
cape of Perseus, Telephos, Dionysos, CEdipus, 
etc., for these were all young children, while Deu- 
calion is an old man. Moreover, if the purpose 
of Deucalion's Flood story is to show how a hero 
is exalted to the gods (i.e., how the young sun 
rises, for which an old man is not very suitable), 
it is a little singular that nothing is said of the 
translation of Deucalion. I think the strongest 
concrete example Usener can point to is the 
translation of Xisuthros' pilot. He, indeed, re- 
minds us of the pilots of Greek mythology, Nau- 
sithoos, Phaix, and Charon, the pilot to Hades ; 
but, on the other hand, Xisuthros left his vessel 
behind him, and no pilot of Deucalion is men- 
tioned. On Usener's hypothesis that the 
nucleus of the Flood is the exaltation of a hero to 
heaven (the rising of the sun), the taking of the 
animals becomes sheer nonsense which Usener is 
obliged to regard as an afterthought. f Charming 
as Usener's treatment of the subject is, I do not 

* To this it may be objected that the Hellenes did not spring 
from the union of Deucalion and Pyrrha, but from stones. 

f It is right to add that in the Greek Flood legend the taking 
of the animals occurs only in the latest versions, and in versions 
which plainly betray their Semitic origin. 



(453) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

believe that his deHcately wrought theory is 
strong enough to sustain the weight of the Flood 
traditions of mankind. The true parallel in Se- 
mitic literature to the Greek children exposed in 
chests, would seem to be the exposure in little 
arks of infants like Moses and Sargon. 

Very much more terse, robust and striking 
are the observations of the lamented Dr. Brinton, 
than whom few more profound students of prim- 
itive manners and beliefs ever lived. Dr. Brinton 
begins his discussion by calling attention to the 
natural tendency of the human mind to account 
for the existence of things, and the inability of 
primitive peoples to imagine a creation out of 
nothing. A simple primordial element and a 
deity to shape it, are the data of all early Creation 
stories. As to the nature of that substance, all 
nations agree that it was water which held all else 
in solution, which covered and concealed all. 
Earth, on the other hand, is conceived as already 
in existence, although covered by waters, and the 
first act of Creation consists in separating the 
earth from the waters. This is as true of the He- 
brew and Babylonian cosmogonies as it is of the 
Creation stories of the American Indians. The 
myth of Creation, then, is only a myth of con- 
struction. It arose, on the one side, from the im- 
possibility of imagining a creation out of noth- 
ing, and on the other from the difficulty of con- 
ceiving the eternity of matter. But further, the 
thought that the world has existed in its present 
form from the beginning and that it will always 
so exist, is oppressive to the human soul, so men 
have sought relief by breaking up the illimitable 

age of the world into cycles or periods of time, 

^^■^— — ^— ^— ^"— — ^^■^■^^— ^— -I 

(454) 



Brinton's Theory 



each followed by a world-catastrophe. " Not 
physics, but metaphysics, is the exciting cause 
of these beliefs in periodical convulsions of the 
globe." '' In effect, a myth of Creation is no- 
where found among primitive nations. It seems 
repugnant to their reason. Dry land and animal 
life had a beginning, but not matter. A series 
of constructions and demolitions may conveni- 
ently be supposed for these." '' Hence arose the 
belief in epochs of nature, elaborated by ancient 
philosophers into the Cycles of the Stoics, the 
Great Days of Brahm, long periods of time 
rounded off by sweeping destructions, the cata- 
clysms and ekpyrauses of the universe. Some 
thought that in these all beings perished; others, 
that a few survived. The latter and more com- 
mon view is the origin of the myth of the Deluge." 
In this I venture to think Dr. Brinton confuses 
two well-defined classes of phenomena. The 
Flood story, whatever its origin, is a free and 
spontaneous creation of the people, a simple tale, 
the subject of an epic poem. Such conceptions, 
however, as the Four World Ages with their cor- 
responding catastrophes, the Cycles of the 
Stoics and the Great Days of Brahm, are concep- 
tions emanating from men who passed for phil- 
osophers, which never became popular or ex- 
panded into a genuinely mythical form. To de- 
rive the Flood tradition from conceptions of this 
kind which psychologically occur much later, is to 
put the cart before the horse. This is easily seen in 
the case of Hesiod. The most popular statement 
of the doctrine of the Four Ages is Hesiod's and 
he has not a word to say on the subject of the 
Flood. The same thing is true of the Persians, 



(455) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

who possessed the doctrine of the Four World 
Ages, but no Flood story. Even in India, if, as 
we suppose, the Flood tradition was imported, 
it failed to form the necessary counterpart of 
the Hindu doctrine of the Four Ages. Neither, 
we may be sure, did the Flood story arise from 
any such abstract cause as the attempt to 
escape from the eternity of matter. The germ 
of the Flood story is moral, not metaphysical. 
Even the doctrine of the World Ages is not 
merely an attempt to make eternity less long 
by breaking it up, but rather to show through 
what successive stages the world has deterio- 
rated. It is also a weak point in Brinton's 
theory that out of all possible fates to which the 
world is consigned in its several cataclysms, there 
is such a vast preponderance of tradition in favor 
of a destruction by water. The doctrine of the 
World Periods, whether we select two, four or 
five, throws no light on this curious unanimity of 
opinion. Neither is there the slightest connec- 
tion between a desire to cognize eternity and a 
flood. And yet Brinton is right over and over 
again in asserting that the Flood story is closely 
connected with Creation. It was the perception 
of this truth and the gradually growing convic- 
tion that the Flood myth throughout the world is 
the companion-piece of the Creation myth that 
led me to see the inadequacy of all naturalistic ex- 
planations of the Flood. In the majority of Flood 
stories the religious myth is unmistakable. The 
Flood marks a chapter in the history of the 
world. The Flood hero stands in a peculiar rela- 
tion to God, by whom he is warned, guided, pre- 
served. In almost all cases he is represented as 

(456) 



Motive of Flood Story 



the ancestor of the human race, the father of the 
new humanity, either by procreation or, in the 
case of the Aryan Flood heroes, by creation. The 
part played by birds in discovering or recovering 
the lost earth is similar to the part taken by birds 
in Creation. 

What motive, then, can we suggest that will 
account for and satisfy so many conditions? 
What mental or moral conception can we find 
equally operative among the most diverse peo- 
ples, which will enable us to make our way 
through this labyrinth of fact and fiction ? With- 
out hesitation we turn to the simplest and most 
universal article of ancient belief, operative in the 
new world as well as in the old ^ — belief in a past 
of Edenic felicity, with its necessary corollary of 
deterioration and ultimate perdition. It is not 
necessary for me now to review the evidence I 
brought forward in an earlier chapter of the al- 
most universal tradition that the Golden Age of 
the world came first. f Formal statements of 
this opinion are found in the doctrine of the 
World Ages in Aryan mythology, in the age of 
Ra in Egypt, and in the mythological systems 
of the new world. Coupled with the thought of 
the perfection of the first age is the thought of the 
growing deterioration of subsequent ages. But 
given this premise, the destruction of the world 
is certain to follow. What form would this de- 
struction naturally take? The myth could not 
contradict the testimony of men's physical senses. 
Their belief was that in consequence of the de- 

* " Myths of the New World," 103-106. 

f See Pfleiderer's " Die Idee eines Goldenen Zeitalters," Berlin, 
1877. 



(457) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

terioration of the world and the growing iniquity 
of man, the world had been destroyed. But their 
senses revealed to them the fact that the world is 
still here. How can those facts be reconciled? 
And how does it happen that out of all possible 
dangers with which men are threatened, prac- 
tically all nations that possess the tradition of the 
destruction of the world are silent as to earth- 
quakes, fire, pestilence and wind, and speak only 
of the destruction by water? In reality the 
reconciliation is simple — yes, unavoidable. One 
of these beliefs explains the other. The earth 
has been destroyed, yet it is still here. Evi- 
dently, then, the earth has been recreated. The 
problem of recreation, therefore, is almost ex- 
actly similar to the problem of creation. But to 
this problem, as Brinton truly says, there has 
never been more than one answer. The world 
came out of water. We find this belief from one 
end of the world to the other, among Babylo- 
nians, Hindus, Hebrews, Greeks and Egyptians, 
as well as among the inhabitants of the American 
continent and the islands of the Pacific. It is as 
widespread as the Flood tradition itself. The 
same train of thought, therefore, which con- 
strained so many nations to picture the world as 
rising out of the water at its creation, constrained 
them to picture it as rising out of the water in 
its re-creation. In short, there is in this explana- 
tion the nucleus of the Flood myth; namely, (i) 
A universal deluge ; (2) The moral motive of the 
deluge ; and (3) The relation of the Flood story to 
the Creation story. The salvation of a hero and 
his wife would naturally be described by the race 
that pretended to descend from that hero, as we 

' '^ (458) 



A New Explanation 



see in Greece. In time, other picturesque inci- 
dents, such as the warning of God, the preserva- 
tion of the cattle, etc., might follow. But the 
essential features of the Flood myths which are 
found in many parts of the world rest, through 
the simplest induction, on beliefs that are shared 
by a large portion of humanity. The world was 
said to have been destroyed by water because 
that destruction was not permanent, but was fol- 
lowed by a new lease of life. According to the 
belief of the most diverse nations, another de- 
struction is in store for the world, which will 
be final. It will be a destruction by fire, from 
which no new world will emerge. That destruc- 
tion is naturally still in the future. The Flood 
story, then, is connected with the creation of 
earth on one side and with its final perdition on 
the other. 

The advantages I claim for this explanation 
are the following: 

1. The rehgious character of the Flood myth 
is explained, which in the best examples of the 
myth cannot be explained by the naturalistic 
hypothesis, or by simple nature-myths. 

2. The close connection between the Flood 
and the Creation of the world now becomes ap- 
parent — a most important point, on which 
neither the nature-myth nor the naturalistic ex- 
planation throws any light. 

3. The moral motive of the Flood, which plays 
so important a part in the mythology of the 
higher nations, is supplied. This also the ether- 
myth leaves untouched. 

4. In the face of all other catastrophes which 
threaten the earth — earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. 



(459) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

— this view explains why the universal myth of a 
world destruction is a Flood myth. 

5. Lastly, I may mention the shadowy connec- 
tion between the Flood and the end of the world, 
of which we find traces in so many religious lit- 
eratures. 

In offering this theory I am far from imagin- 
ing that I have discovered the sole cause of the 
Flood myths of mankind. Of the naturalistic 
causes that contributed to the development of 
a Flood myth I shall soon speak. It may be ex- 
pected that the lower we descend in the scale of 
humanity, the less important becomes the deter- 
mining moral factor that I have suggested. On 
the other hand, among a brilliantly imaginative 
people Hke the Greeks, new motives would cer- 
tainly be discovered, and, as Usener suggests, 
the myth would be transformed by other myths 
of different origin. Other nature-myths, sug- 
gested by the struggle of winter and summer, the 
sight of the land emerging from the water in the 
spring, etc., may well play a part; and we must 
also remember the transformation which the orig- 
inal myth undergoes in passing from one people 
to another. The great mistake almost every 
writer in this field has made is to be satisfied with 
too simple a solution, whereas the material for 
which one explanation is deemed sufficient is 
the richest and most composite imaginable. Al- 
though I am convinced that several of the mos-t 
striking features of the Flood myth cannot be 
accounted for either by simple nature-myths or 
by naturalistic hypotheses,* I am far from deny- 

* The two strongest arguments against supposing the Flood 
myth to be developed merely from the recollection of actual dis- 



Natural Causes 



ing the part that natural causes have played in 
the formation of the many-sided Flood legend. 
On the contrary, as in the Flood story of Izdubar, 
we frequently see reminiscences of historical fact 
grafted on to the stem of the general myth. This 
circumstance, which is notorious to all who have 
made a careful study of the question,* can have 
no place in the theory of those who place their 
Flood solely in the sky, hence they are obliged to 
close their eyes to the most striking descriptions 
of terrestrial deluges. Let us see, however, how 
the matter really stands. From the very nature 
of the case, the materials out of which the ether- 
myth is spun are open to all. All nations see the 
setting sun, above all the great sea of heaven is 
spread out, with its islands, peaks, canoes, man 
and wife and what-not. All nations see the sky 
covered with clouds which conceal the lumi- 
naries, and the very nucleus of the theory is that 
people at a certain stage of culture reason on 
these facts in the same way. How does it happen, 
then, that all nations do not interpret these phe- 
nomena similarly ? If that is the way the Flood 
myth is created, why do not all nations possess it ? 

asters are : i. Its essentially religious character and its close con- 
nection with Creation. 2. The fact that earthquakes are nearly 
as frequent as deluges and are even more disastrous and mys- 
terious, yet that no true earthquake-myth exists. 

*So great a master of primitive folk-lore as H. H. Bancroft 
ascribes the Flood traditions of the American Indians to the fol- 
lowing sources : i. The sudden rising of a river. 2. The dis- 
covery of sea shells on elevated places. 3. The submergence of 
land by earthquake. 4. Scriptural tradition (" Native Races of 
the Pacific States," v. 138). The author of the brief but masterly 
article on "Die Flutsagen " in Meyer's " Konversations Lexi- 
con " also recognizes only naturalistic causes in the formation of 
the Flood legend. Richard Andree also declares himself unqual- 
ifiedly in favor of a physical cause of the Flood myth. 



(461) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

This, it may be said, is going much too far. It is 
enough and more than enough that so many na- 
tions have the Flood myth. No doubt this is 
true, and yet it is not a little singular that as a rule 
only those countries have the Flood story where 
floods actually occur, while in those parts of the 
world, like Africa and Arabia and Central Asia, 
in which floods rarely happen, the Flood story 
can scarcely be said to exist at all. In few parts 
of the world are Flood stories more common than 
in the islands of Polynesia, and nowhere are those 
stories more satisfactorily accounted for by geo- 
graphical and cHmatic conditions. The same 
thing may be said with less emphasis of North 
America, and I call attention again to the fact 
that many of the Flood stories we have examined 
in different countries well describe the peculiar 
characteristics of local deluges to which those 
countries are exposed. If the Flood myth were 
merely transferred from the sky to the earth, or 
arose from the belief in the growing sinfulness of 
man, there ought to be no such congruity be- 
tween the myth and the event. There would be 
no reason why Flood stories should not arise in 
the heart of Africa or Arabia as freely as in Poly- 
nesia or America. That, however, is not the case. 
There are exceptions, it is true, but as a rule, 
in countries where destructive floods occur, tra- 
ditions occur, and conversely. Egypt is a case 
in point, as to which the advocates of the ether- 
myth observe a significant silence. It is the very 
country of all others where we should expect to 
find the ether-myth in operation. The Egyp- 
tians had the idea of the sky as a sea, which the 
sun-god, Ra, traverses in his boat. But in Egypt, 

(46^) 



Influence of Geographical Conditions 

as Plato's Egyptian priest remarks, severe rain 
storms do not occur, and the only flood they 
know, the rise of the Nile, is a beneficent source 
of life and fertility. Hence no Flood story exists 
there. Perhaps the same thing may be^said of 
Persia. Consisting to a certain extent of high 
table-lands, shut in from the sea in both direc- 
tions by lofty mountains, and with few large riv- 
ers, Persia would suffer little, if at all, from del- 
uges; but in winter its plateaus and mountains are 
intensely cold. Accordingly, the only story we 
find of a general destruction of human Hfe is not 
a destruction by water, but by a series of terrible 
winters. The same general geographical condi- 
tions prevail in the great steppes of Central Asia, 
and the same absence of Flood traditions. As for 
China, it is true floods occur there frequently, 
and yet we have no true Chinese Flood myth. 
That is probably because the Chinese, having 
learned to write at a very early date and being a 
people but Httle addicted to mythology, have re- 
corded their floods in the form of history. Al- 
though I do not pretend to say that Flood and 
Flood myth go everywhere hand in hand, yet 
they occur too often together to encourage the 
supposition that they have nothing to do with 
each other. 

Among the physical causes of great deluges, 
the fall of rain is one of the least important. 
There is a point beyond which rainfall cannot go. 
Far more dangerous than rain are gigantic waves 
propagated by earthquakes, tornadoes and cy- 
clones, and the sudden subsidence of the shores 
of lakes and seas. In many true flood stories, 
for example, in a Peruvian story I have related, 

(463) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

in tales from the islands of the Pacific, and, I 
believe, in the flood story of Izdubar, lively 
recollections of these horrors are unmistakably 
present. 

There is another factor which undoubtedly 
played a large part in the evolution of the Flood 
tradition. I mean the impression made on sav- 
age minds by the remains of sea animals, fossil 
fishes, marine shells, etc., deposited on high 
places which now are never reached by the sea. 
Cheyne speaks of this as a rationaHstic idea, 
which would occur only at a comparatively late 
period of reflection. It would seem, however, an 
exceedingly simple inference that where the re- 
mains of sea animals now are, the sea must once 
have been. In support of this opinion, I remind 
you of several Flood stories related in the last 
chapter, in which the Eskimos in one case and the 
inhabitants of the Leeward Islands in another, 
actually pointed to the fossil remains of sea ani- 
mals deposited on mountains as a proof of the 
reality of the Flood. To these examples I will add 
a few others, taken mostly from Andree * and 
Tylor.f The Samoans believe that fish formerly 
swam where the land now is, and that when the 
waters abated many of the fish were turned to 
stone. The first missionaries to Greenland found 
a tolerably distinct version of the Flood story in 
support of which the inhabitants affirmed that far 
up in the country, where men never dwelt, there 
were found on a high mountain remains of all 
sorts of fishes and even of whales. The same in- 
ference, as we know, was made by the ancients, 

* " Flutsagen," 149. 

f " Early Hist, of Mankind," 326 ff. 

(464) 



Naturalistic Causes 



for example, by Herodotus ''' and Strabo.f The 
most natural conclusion to be drawn from the 
presence of marine fossils on mountains is that 
the sea once covered those mountains. But such 
a flood would be a universal, or a well-nigh uni- 
versal deluge. In this way many of our Flood 
stories doubtless arose, aided and enlivened by 
recollections of lesser actual deluges. Whatever 
mythical or religious explanation is ultimately 
adopted as the necessary cause of certain features 
of the Flood traditions of mankind, a large place 
must always be left for the experience of the 
catastrophe and inductions from physical facts 
such as we have described. 

*ii. 12. fi. 3. 4. 



(465) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Chapter Twenty-one: 

The Physical Causes of Our Deluge. The 
Discovery of the Vine 

After a rather long digression among the 
XJL Flood traditions of mankind, I am glad to 
return to our own Flood story of Genesis. It 
seemed to me important that we should know 
what a part this venerable tradition has played 
in the mythology of the nations, and from what 
ideas and experiences the various Flood myths 
originated. In this last study we saw that, 
although most Flood stories contain mythical 
elements, other elements in many of them 
plainly had their origin in fact. This applies 
also to our own tradition. The reasons for this 
assertion I shall give immediately. Here I may 
merely say that, regarding our Flood as an event 
that actually took place, I shall attempt to dis- 
cover the physical causes of that Flood, so far as 
it is possible to determine them at the present 
time. We have, as you know, two great sources 
of information in regard to the Deluge. One 
body of tradition is preserved in the Book of 
Genesis, the other is contained in the literature 
of Babylonia. Unquestionably, both these tradi- 
tions refer to the same great catastrophe. Both 
the Babylonian and the Hebrew accounts have 
come down to us in two forms, the Hebrew, in 

(466) 



The Four Accounts 



the documents of the Jehovist and the Priestly 
Writer of Genesis ; the Babylonian, in the history 
of Berosus and in the epic poem of Izdubar. Of 
these four forms of the tradition, the poem of 
Izdubar is by far the oldest. While Berosus 
lived under Alexander the Great, and the Jeho- 
vist, our earliest authority, lived certainly not 
before the ninth century B.C., the poem of Izdu- 
bar is believed to date from about 2000 B.C. It is 
therefore entitled to be regarded as our oldest 
authority for the Flood, and I shall treat it ac- 
cordingly. But the Flood episode in the poem 
of Izdubar is not only the oldest account of the 
Flood, it is also, as we should expect, the most 
exact in its description of events. A good many 
specific features which are of great value in de- 
termining what actually took place, fade away 
and are obscured in the later versions. This also 
looks as if the story were founded on physical 
facts, which were well remembered when the Iz- 
dubar version was written, but which afterward 
were forgotten. There is one other feature of 
the Flood story of Izdubar which is of some im- 
portance. When we were studying that poem I 
pointed out a good many times that the original 
conception of the Flood was not that of a uni- 
versal destruction, but of a local deluge, sent to 
destroy the single city of Surippak, on the Eu- 
phrates. As time passed the Flood grew in mag- 
nitude and put on greater proportions. But it is 
very plain that the original story was not a story 
of a world-deluge. 

This may be disappointing to some, but, on the 
whole, it is reassuring. It is now admitted by all 
that no such universal Deluge has taken place. 



(467) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

If our story spoke only of a universal Deluge, we 
could hardly suppose that it had any foundation 
in fact. But by admitting that the story was not 
originally a story of the destruction of the world, 
but of the destruction of Surippak, we cut the 
ground from under every mythological explana- 
tion of our Flood. .No one would invent a 
world-myth to account for the destruction of one 
little town. This, I conceive, to persons who 
prefer fact to fiction, is a distinct gain. What- 
ever mythical features our story afterward took 
on, and there are plenty of them, it had its origin 
in a physical fact, not in a mere idea. With this 
preface I turn to the story itself, in the hope of 
being able to separate its physical elements from 
the mythology in which they were afterward 
clothed. In this study I shall depend largely on 
the judicious remarks of Ihering in his '' Evolu- 
tion of the Aryan," and on the brilliant treatise of 
Edouard Suess, the Swiss geologist.* It will be 
necessary for us to review, to a certain extent, 
the Flood episode contained in the eleventh 
tablet of Izdubar. 

The scene of the Flood, as we know, is Surip- 
pak. Sit-napistim says to Izdubar: 

" Izdubar, I will tell you the secret. . . . The city 
Surippak, which you know, on the banks of the Euphrates, 
the same city was already old when the gods were minded 
to send a flood." 

The exact site of Surippak has not been dis- 
covered. It lay, as the poem says, on the Eu- 
phrates, and scholars believe that it is to be 
looked for on the lower course of the river. We 

* "Die Sintfluth," Prag, 1883, 
_ 



Situation of Surippak 



must also remember that at the time of the Flood, 
which was certainly earHer than 2000 B.C., the 
Tigris and the Euphrates did not unite as they 
do now, but each flowed independently into the 
Persian Gulf.* It would appear that Surippak, 
which means '' shiptown," was a seafaring city, 
both from the readiness with which Sit-napistim 
set to work to build his large vessel and from his 
fear of the criticism or ridicule of the townspeo- 
ple when they should see him constructing so 
strange a craft. You will remember his reply to 
the command of Ea to build a ship : 

" My lord, what you have commanded I will hold in 
honor , . . but what shall I answer to the town, the 
people and the elders? " 

In fact, every feature of Sit-napistim's prep- 
aration, the taking of a rudder and a pilot, the 
use of the birds in finding land, etc., seems to have 
originated among a seafaring people that well 
understood the construction and navigation of 
ships. In this connection the caulking of the ship 
with asphalt or mineral pitch, which Sit-napistim 
did of his own accord, is very interesting. 

" Six sar [large measures] of asphalt [bitumen] I poured 
on the outside, three sar of asphalt on the inside." 

This circumstance is mentioned in Genesis, 
but there Noah is commanded by God, '' Thou 
shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." f 
The Hebrews, not being a maritime people, 
would not expect Noah to think of that him- 

* See Suess' remarks, pp. lo, ii ; and Frd. Delitzsch, "Wo 
lag- das Paradies?" 1883, pp. 173-182. 
f Gen. vi. 14. 



{469) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

self. The employment of asphalt is a correct 
historical allusion. The heights along the Lower 
Euphrates are rich in bitumen, and it is still used 
for the purpose of making vessels watertight.* 
The use of mineral pitch would make Sit- 
napistim's vessel black, as the poem asserts. 
It is also significant that the warnings of the com- 
ing destruction are given by Ea, who is repre- 
sented first as sending a dream to Sit-napistim, 
and then as speaking to him by a voice. Leaving 
the dream to one side, we should naturally under- 
stand by the voice of the god of the deep some of 
those preHminary warnings of the sea which be- 
token the coming storm, or the first trembling 
which precedes the earthquake.! 

The description of the catastrophe itself is full 
of meaning. Unfortunately, on account of our 
ignorance of the minor deities of the Babylonian 
pantheon, part of its meaning escapes us. It is 
very plain, however, that the Flood was not 
caused by rain alone, nor by an overflow of the 
Euphrates River. In fact, the violent downpour 
of rain only served as a signal that the Flood was 
about to begin. 

" When he who sends the whirlwind sends in the evening 
a terrible rainstorm, then go into the ship and shut the 
door." 

The description of the oncoming Flood Jensen 
translates as follows : 

* See report of Joseph Cernik, Expedition for Technical Study 
in the Euphrates District, quoted by Suess, 12, 13. In regard to 
the art of navigation among the Babylonians, see Ihering, pp. 
162-169. Ihering beheves that the Babylonians possessed sea- 
going ships and some knowledge of navigation as early as 4000 

B.C. 

f Suess. 

(470) 



Causes of Flood 



As soon as the glow of dawn appeared, 

A dusky cloud rose on the firmament of Heaven. 

Ramman thundered in it. 

Nabu and Marduk went before, 

Went as leaders over mountain and land. 

Urugal tore the ship's [rudder] loose. 

Ninib advanced, let the raging storm follow. 

The Annunaki raised their torches, 

By their streaming brightness they made the land to 

sparkle. 
Ramman's swelling waves rose to heaven, 
Turned all brightness into darkness [?]. 
He overflowed the land like a [ ]. 
For one [day the hurricane smote]. 
Swiftly blew hither . . . the waters [?] rose to the 

mountains, 
Bore down on men like a battle storm. 
Brother saw not his brother, men were not regarded in 

heaven. 

The general meaning of this seems plain. The 
Flood begins with a terrific atmospheric dis- 
turbance. Thick clouds obscure the sky, the day 
is like night. " Brother could not see brother," 
save only for the flashing lightning. In short, 
we have here a vivid picture of a violent storm, 
perhaps accompanied by a waterspout. The gods 
that are mentioned in the earlier parts of the 
description are mostly elemental deities, gods of 
the upper regions. Ramman is a storm god, 
Ninib a solar deity; the storm sun, Marduk, also 
is a heavenly deity. This remark, however, does 
not apply to all. The Annunaki, who play such a 
prominent role and who are later held chiefly 
responsible for the Flood, are spirits of the 
earth.* Urugal, who tore the ship from its 
moorings, is a god of the lower world. It would 
appear, then, that the Flood is represented as 
surging up from below as well as coming from 

* Jastrow, p. 184. 



(471) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

above. This tradition is more clearly preserved 
in Genesis, where it is distinctly stated that 
before the rain fell '' all the fountains of the 
great deep were broken tip." "^ Unfortunately, 
Berosus' account of the oncoming of the Flood 
has perished. But so much emphasis is laid on 
this fact in Genesis that we are rather surprised 
that the Babylonian poem does not mention it 
more distinctly, especially as it was an idea which 
must have originated f in Lower Babylonia. 
This gives us the impression of an earthquake. 
It is well known that in alluvial soil of recent 
formation one does not have to go far beneath 
the surface to find water. Sir Charles Lyell re- 
minds us of what took place in 1812 in New 
Madrid, which Hes on the bank of the Mississippi, 
a little below the mouth of the Ohio, in the State 
of Missouri. There the ground continued to 
quake for several months. The inhabitants say 
that the earth rose in great waves, and when 
these had reached a certain fearful height the 
soil burst, and vast columns of water, sand and 
coal were discharged as high as the tops of the 
trees. At one time the ground swelled up so 
as to turn back temporarily the great volume 
of the Mississippi River.$ When we hear of the 
waves of Ramman rising to Heaven, and the 
fountains of the great deep breaking up, we 
naturally think of a violent earthquake. If its 
centre of action, as it would appear, was in the 

*Gen. vii. 11. 

f We must remember, however, that in the Babylonian poem the 
causes of the Flood are stated mythically, and the allusion to the 
part played by earth spirits would be nearly equivalent to the 
allusion to the bursting of subterranean waters in Genesis. 

X " Principles of Geolog-y," nth ed., ii. io6 ff. 

(472) 



Three Physical Phenomena 



Persian Gulf, great waves would certainly be 
formed which would strike the low-lying banks 
of the Euphrates with frightful force. But be- 
fore such waves made their presence felt, it would 
seem that the alluvial soil of Lower Babylonia 
itself experienced a shaking somewhat similar to 
that of New Madrid, in consequence of which 
the waters confined beneath the shallow crust of 
earth burst forth, giving the impression that the 
fountains of the great deep were breaking up. 
At all events the three following physical phe- 
nomena apparently were before the minds of 
the authors of Izdubar and of the writers of 
Genesis : 

1. A severe storm, accompanied by wind, thick 
darkness, thunder and Hghtning. 

2. A seismic disturbance of the alluvial soil of 
Babylonia, in consequence of which considerable 
volumes of water were driven upward. 

3. The action of this same disturbance beneath 
the waters of the Persian Gulf, at that time not 
far distant from Surippak, which propagated 
great waves up the Euphrates, completely sub- 
merging its banks and spreading far inland. 

I shall speak in a moment of the necessity for 
this last supposition. Here I wish to remark that 
every feature of the Flood story of Izdubar 
speaks for a sudden and brief catastrophe, not for 
a slow accumulation and abatement of waters like 
that described in Genesis. We see how suddenly 
the Flood came, as swiftly as in Galveston. In 
a single day the damage was done and the coun- 
try was submerged. This fact in itself forbids us 
to think of rain as a principal cause. The Flood 
also abated suddenly. 



(473) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



For six days and nights went the wind. 

The flood-storm, the hurricane smote the earth. 

When the seventh day broke, the waters abated, 

The flood-storm ceased, 

The storm, which had fought Hke an armed host. 

The sea was quiet which the hurricane had stirred up. 

I looked out on the sea, I let my voice sound; 

But all men were turned to clay. 

Everything here speaks for an irruption of 
water from the Persian Gulf. The presence of 
'' the sea " so far inland can hardly be accounted 
for by a hurricane. We should think rather of 
gigantic waves launched by a submarine earth- 
quake. This becomes plainer as we go on. 

After twelve [days, or double hours?] a strip of land ap- 
peared. 

The ship reached the land Nisir. 

The mountain of the land Nisir held the ship fast, and 
would not let it move from its place. 

One day, a second day the mountain of Nisir held it. 

A third day, a fourth day, etc. 

A fifth day, a sixth day, etc. 

This passage proves conclusively that the 
Flood was not caused by an overflow of the Eu- 
phrates, produced by rains, however extraor- 
dinary. Had that been the case, Sit-napistim's 
vessel would have been carried in a southerly di- 
rection, into the Persian Gulf. But according to 
all our accounts, the vessel or ark sailed, or was 
driven, to the north. The later versions (Genesis 
and Berosus) speak of Armenia as a landing 
place, which, from the point of view of natural 
science, is out of the question. It is too far and 
too elevated to be submerged by a deluge pro- 
duced by natural causes in the region of the Per- 
sian Gulf. The earher tradition preserved in 
Izdubar is, however, much more moderate. It 

(474) 



Possibility of Earthquake 



places the landing of Sit-napistim's ship in the 
land of Nisir, which lies only about three hun- 
dred miles northwest of the Persian Gulf and in 
the direction of its axis. Considering the nature 
of the intervening land, which is a low, alluvial 
plain, it would not appear impossible that a series 
of gigantic waves set in motion in the Persian 
Gulf (which we must remember then extended 
much further inland) might penetrate so far, and 
even deposit a vessel of light draught on the first 
range of mountains it encountered. It is not 
stated in Izdubar that the vessel rested on the 
summit of the mountain, but only that it rested 
on a mountain in the land of Nisir. The vessel is 
carried northward over the low plains between 
the rivers, reaches the bed of the Lower Tigris, 
which would be equally affected by such a dis- 
turbance; then it is carried further north and 
northeast to the adjacent mountains. Remem- 
bering, as I have said, that at the time of the Del- 
uge the Persian Gulf extended nearly a hundred 
miles further inland than now,* the distance 
traversed was perhaps two hundred and fifty 
miles and the time consumed was about one week. 
In view of the far-reaching effects of earthquakes 
recorded by Sir Charles Lyell and other geolo- 
gists, there does not appear to be anything im- 
probable in this. At all events, the excellent ge- 
ologist, Suess, who has investigated the subject 
more thoroughly than any one else, finds no 

* In primitive times the Persian Gulf extended much further 
inland than it did later, and to the present day the recovery of 
submerged land goes slowly but steadily on, in ancient times at 
the rate of one English mile in thirty years, now at the rate of 
one mile in seventy years. — F. Hommel, " Geschichte Babylo- 
niens," pp. i8i, 182. 



(475) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

difficulty in accepting this hypothesis. That this 
was the actual concatenation of events which 
brought about the Deluge, I do not dream of as- 
serting, but I believe it is the most probable ex- 
planation yet offered of the physical phenomena 
described in the oldest version of the Flood story. 
Whether or not we feel Uke admitting that the 
effects of an earthquake in the Persian Gulf could 
carry a vessel so far inland, it seems reasonable to 
beheve that such an earthquake was the prime 
cause of the Deluge. On this supposition, the 
preliminary warnings, the bursting of subterra- 
nean waters, the surging waves of Ramman, the 
presence of the sea so far inland, above all, the 
course of the vessel or ark against the current of 
both Tigris and Euphrates, become intelligible. 

It ought not to be objected to this that the 
combination of earthquake and storm is an im- 
probable coincidence, another tax on our cre- 
dulity. Sir Charles Lyell speaks frequently of 
the fact that severe earthquakes are accompanied 
almost always by violent storms ; " sudden gusts 
of wind . . . violent rains at unusual sea- 
sons, reddening of the sun's disk and haziness in 
the air often continue for months." * Several of 
the earthquakes recorded by him and by Suess 
were attended by storms of the most violent char- 
acter. 

Although I do not know that earthquakes 
have occurred in the Persian Gulf in modern 
times, the region of Mesopotamia has been fre- 
quently shaken. Perhaps its most celebrated 
earthquake was that which in the year 763 B.C., 
the year of the eclipse, made itself felt from As- 

* " Principles of Geology," 281. 

_ 



Time of the Year 



Syria to Palestine,* and which the Prophet Amos 
describes in these remarkable words : '^ Seek him 
that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turn- 
eth the shadow of death into the morning, and 
maketh the day dark with night : that calleth for 
the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon 
the face of the earth : The Lord is His name."t 
It is to be remembered, however, that our Flood 
is described as a catastrophe of unusual severity, 
in fact, as an altogether unique occurrence. It 
took place in a portion of the world which even 
then was thickly populated, and it was probably 
attended with fearful loss of life. 

I will add two other incidents that make for the 
view of the Deluge which I have adopted from 
Suess. Berosus, you may remember, asserts that 
the Flood began in summer, in May or June. 
This, it has been conjectured, was the mistake of 
some copyist. It has been considered impossible 
that the Flood should have begun in summer, be- 
cause at that time the rivers are at their lowest. 
If, however, the Flood was caused by an inunda- 
tion from the Persian Gulf, it might have occurred 
at one time of the year as well as another. Lyell 
speaks of violent storms at unusual times of the 
year, accompanying earthquakes. It is true that 
the Flood story of Izdubar is contained in the 
eleventh tablet of that poem, corresponding to 
the eleventh month, November, " the month of 
the plague of rain," yet it is not impossible that 
Berosus has preserved an older tradition. 

* Determined by Lehmann and Oppholzer's calculation of an 
eclipse of the sun, which occurred on June 14, 763 B.C. See 
Suess, p. 59. 

f Amos, V. 8. 



(477) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

My other remark is this : In the Book of Gen- 
esis, the coming of the Flood is introduced in 
a rather awkward manner. God says, " Behold, 
I, even I, will bring a flood, namely waters upon 
the earth." * And again, in the next chapter, 
the expression is repeated, " And Noah was six 
hundred years old when the flood, namely, 
waters, was upon the earth." f It is generally 
supposed that the reason for this circumlocution 
lay in the fact that the Hebrew word for flood 
{inabbul) is very unusual in that language. The 
author, therefore, felt it necessary each time to 
add the word '' waters " in explanation. But it 
has been suggested that the word '' majim,'' 
which we translate waters, by a very slight 
change would read '' jnijjam,'' which means 
'' from the sea," so that both these passages 
would then read, " I am bringing a flood from the 
sea." J 

In this connection I must mention the frag- 
ment of a Babylonian Flood legend discovered 
by F. E. Peiser in the British Museum and pub- 
lished by him in i889.§ Unfortunately, the text 
is brief and exceedingly mutilated, but what 
makes it of peculiar interest is the fact that it is 
accompanied by a map of Babylonia which must 
be one of the oldest geographical representations 
in the world. || It seems to be generally admitted 
by Assyriologists^ that this fragment originally 

* Gen. vi. 17. 
f Gen. vii. 6. 

X J. D. Michaelis, 1775, quoted by Suess. 
§ " Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie," 1889, pp. 361-370. 
II Peiser regards it as " hardly later than goo B.C." 
•jf This statement is made on the authority of Dr. George A. 
Barton, of Bryn Mawr College. Zimmern (" Encycl. Bib.") ex- 

(478) 



Peiser's Map 



described a flood. According to Peiser, Zim- 
mern and others, a portion of Sit-napistim's 
name appears in the text, and the map itself rep- 
resents Babylonia as surrounded by water. I re- 
fer to the translation of the descriptive portions 
of the map and the valuable notes most kindly 
prepared for me by my friend Dr. Barton, which 
are published in the appendix of this work. The 
more important portion of Peiser's text is as fol- 
lows : 

Fallen (?) towns . . . which Marduk the lord . . . 
sees. And the fled (?) gods, who, in the midst of the sea 
. . . sit (?) they; and in the year (?) of the great ser- 
pent in which Zu . . . have . . . gazelle . . . 
panther . . . lion, hyena . . . goat and . . . 
stallion . . . pagitum, antelope . . . forsaken the 
interior of Babylonia." 

The beasts seem to have left the doomed plain, 
even the gods appear to have taken flight, as in 
Izdubar. 

The animals which live on the great sea . . . Mar- 
duk ... [at the time of] Samas-napistim-usur, the 
earlier king to whom Dagan [had given] the kingdom of 
Dur, etc. (Peiser's translation). 

What makes this ancient map so interesting to 
us at this point is the fact that it depicts Baby- 
lonia overwhelmed by the waters of the Persian 
Gulf, called here, as in Babylonian and Assyrian 
texts generally, " the bitter stream." The Per- 
sian Gulf is represented on the map as entering 
Babylonia at the mouth of the Euphrates, 
through the *' canal of reeds " and " the outlet; " 

presses himself more strongly. Dr. Jastrow, however, in a pri- 
vate letter, doubts whether this fragment really contains a Flood 
legend. 



(479) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

and th'e very manner in which the Bitter Stream 
is depicted as entering the land through channels 
on each side of the river itself, might seem to indi- 
cate that the mouth of the Euphrates was com- 
pletely inundated. Babylon is correctly repre- 
sented as lying on both sides of the river. To 
the north rises the great mountain which Zim- 
mern regards as the landing place of 'the Flood 
hero, but which Dr. Barton considers the moun- 
tain boundary of the world. Dr. Barton, how- 
ever, believes he finds Artu, or Ararat, in the 
map, to the northeast of Babylon. Although it 
would be unwise, in view of the incompleteness 
of the text, to insist on the evidence of this frag- 
ment, it is certainly a matter of interest that we 
should possess an ancient Babylonian map ex- 
hibiting the Deluge, and that this map should 
represent Babylonia as surrounded and sub- 
merged by the Persian Gulf. 

To this I will only add that the explanation of 
the Flood here offered is entirely compatible 
with the fact that Egypt was not affected by it ; 
for this flood, originating in the Persian Gulf 
and passing inward for a few hundred miles up 
the course of the Euphrates and the Tigris, would 
not affect Egypt on the Mediterranean basin at 
all. The conditions of Lower Mesopotamia are 
altogether favorable to such an occurrence. They 
are quite similar to the conditions in India at the 
mouths of the Ganges, where frightful deluges, 
involving great loss of life, take place to the pres- 
ent day. If, then, an unusual and long remem- 
bered deluge did occur in Lower Babylonia, 
which there is no reason to doubt, the foregoing 
explanation is probably the b est it has received, 

(480) 



Noah's Sons 



as it follows closely the literal statements of the 
most ancient tradition, without violating scien- 
tific probability. In the Book of Genesis, as in 
the Babylonian accounts, this well-known catas- 
trophe seems to have served as the substratum 
of reahty on which was reared the great religious 
myth, the destruction of the world as a judgment 
for sin. 

Before concluding, I wish to complete our 
study of the Deluge by examining the curious 
passage with which the Flood story ends (Gen. 

18-27): 

18. And the sons of Noah who went forth from the ark 
were Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Ham was the father of 
Canaan. 

19. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these 
the whole earth was overspread. 

These two verses evidently follow immediately 
on the story of the Deluge. They take for 
granted that Noah and his family are the only 
human beings living. The same names are as- 
signed to the three sons of Noah as in the pre- 
vious passages in which they are mentioned.* 
The only thing that strikes us as peculiar is the 
abrupt mention of Canaan as the son of Ham, 
although none of the children of Noah's other 
sons is mentioned. The reason for this, however, 
we soon see. For, as we read along, we observe 
that these two verses are intended merely to in- 
troduce a very peculiar little story in regard to 
Noah, in which the names of his three sons are not 
Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth 
and Canaan. It was doubtless to soften the con- 
tradiction between the names of Noah's sons that 

* Gen. V. 32 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 13. 



31 (481) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the verse we have just translated added " and 
Ham was the father of Canaan." The story re- 
peated below runs as follows : 

20. And Noah the farmer began to plant a vineyard. 

21. And he drank of the wine, and became intoxicated; 
and he was uncovered within his tent. 

22. And Ham the father of Canaan saw his father's nak- 
edness, and he told it to his two brothers outside. 

2^. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it 
on their shoulders and covered the nakedness of their 
father, going in backwards with their faces averted, so that 
they did not see the nakedness of their father. 

24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and became aware 
of what his youngest son had done to him. 

25. And he said, " Cursed be Canaan. The meanest 
slave let him be to his brothers." 

26. And he said, " Blessed be Jahveh, the God of Shem.* 
And let Canaan be their slave, f 

27. God enlarge Japheth, 

And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; 
And let Canaan be their slave." 

This little composition is very ancient, prob- 
ably much older than the rest of our Flood story 
in its present form. If anything besides its abso- 
lute na'iveU is needed to prove this, it is found in 
the singular poem of Noah, which is evi- 
dently one of those little antique chants like 
Lamech's song, which antedate writing and come 
down from the earliest times. It is plain that 
this prophetical chant, containing a blessing for 
Shem and Japheth and a curse for Canaan, is the 
nucleus of the whole incident, from which the 
strange story of Noah was evolved. But this 
story presents Noah in a totally new light. In- 
stead of the rather shadowy character, the right- 

*0r, as Budde translates, omitting the word Elohim, "The 
blessed of Jahveh is Shem." 
f i.e., the slave of his brothers. 

(482) 



Canaan and Ham 



eous man whom we have known, we find Noah 
here in a state of intoxication which, to say the 
least, surprises us. The abrupt mention of Noah 
the farmer is entirely unexpected, and it is 
also strange to find the father and his three 
sons still dwelling together in one tent, as, ac- 
cording to the Flood story, Shem, Ham and 
Japheth were all married men, who after the 
Flood would naturally have homes of their own. 
But this is not all. When we look at Noah's 
song, which is, as we have said, the oldest part 
of the composition, we find that the three 
sons are not Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, 
Japheth and Canaan. It is said in the introduc- 
tion to the poem that Ham, the father of 
Canaan, beheld Noah's nakedness. But in the 
poem itself it is not Ham who was cursed, but 
Canaan. Ham's name is not mentioned at all. 
'' Cursed be Canaan, the meanest slave let him be 
to his brothers." If Ham committed the crime, 
why was not he cursed instead of his child, who 
had done nothing? The only answer is that it 
was Canaan, not Ham, who was guilty of this 
fault, and in the poem Canaan is distinctly called 
the brother of Shem and Japheth. In the twenty- 
fourth verse the perpretrator of the deed is def- 
initely called the youngest son of Noah. Accord- 
ing, then, to the most ancient tradition preserved 
in this poem, the three sons of Noah were not 
Shem, Ham and Japheth, but Shem, Japheth and 
Canaan. Of course this does not agree with what 
was said of Noah's family in the Flood story, and 
it was with the intention of softening this contra- 
diction that some editor changed the words 
Shem, Japheth and Canaan, to Shem, Ham and 



(483) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Japheth, adding by way of explanation, " and 
Ham was the father of Canaan." 

It would therefore appear that the episode of 
the drunkenness of Noah had nothing to do with 
the story of the Flood, which now precedes it. 
It was merely one of those very old Israelitish tra- 
ditions that describe the beginnings of human 
culture and the transition from the nomadic to a 
settled life. Noah was a farmer. He made the 
discovery of the wonderful properties of the 
grape and began its culture. That was an im- 
portant step in human progress, but, as our Je- 
hovist loves to show us, every step man takes in 
this direction is beset with danger, and Noah be- 
comes the victim of his own discovery. Closely 
connected with this is Noah's curse of Canaan, 
his youngest son, and his blessing of Shem and 
Japheth. 

Although all this has nothing to do with the 
story of the Flood, and though it contradicts the 
statements of the Flood story, it is a very interest- 
ing tradition of ancient times. The question is, 
Where does this episode belong? If it has no 
natural connection w4th the Flood, is there any 
other portion of the history of Noah with which 
it combines more naturally? I think there is. 
Turning back to the fifth chapter of Genesis, 
where the birth of Noah is described,* we read 
that his father Lamech " called his name Noah, 
saying, ' This same will comfort us for our work, 
for the sore labor of our hands which comes from 
the ground which Jahveh has cursed.' " How was 
this prophecy fulfilled? Certainly not by Noah's 
escape from the Flood in his ark. That brought 

* Gen. V. 29, 
(48^0 



Noah's Discovery 



little comfort to Lamech, for Noah saved only 
himself and his immediate family, while Lamech 
appears to have been drowned. Moreover, the 
building of an ark has nothing to do with the 
hardships of a farmer's life, of which Lamech so 
bitterly complained. This obscure saying of 
Lamech's, however, becomes clear in the Hght of 
the fact that Noah discovered the use of wine and 
first planted the grape. In antiquity generally, 
and also in the Old Testament, the vine was al- 
ways regarded as one of the choice gifts of 
Heaven and as expressly intended to mitigate 
the hardships of man's lot. '' Give strong drink," 
says the proverb, '^ to him that is ready to per- 
ish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts. 
Let him drink and forget his poverty and remem- 
ber his misery no more." * Among the best 
blessings Isaac could invoke on his first-born 
was "plenty of corn and wine."t The Psalm 
speaks of " wine that maketh glad the heart of 
man." % Although the terrible effects of the 
abuse of wine are truthfully displayed in the Old 
Testament, yet the vine and grape are praised as 
good gifts of God, not only for their own sake, 
but as the symbol of a peaceable and settled life. 
So Noah is represented as making this discovery 
by which the prophecy of his father Lamech was 
fulfilled, " he shall comfort us for all our toil and 
for the sore labor of our hands which comes from 
the ground which Jahveh has cursed." This 
seems to be very plain. We have seen already 
that the story of Noah and the vine has nothing 
to do with the Flood, but it is quite consistent 
with the notice of Noah's birth. Lamech prophe- 

* Prov. xxxi. 6, 7. f Gen. xxvii. 28. ifPs, civ. 15. 



(48s) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

sies that Noah will bring comfort to his contem- 
poraries in their hard struggle with the earth, and 
Noah fulfils that prophecy by causing the earth to 
bring forth wine, which Jeremiah calls '' the cup 
of consolation." * We may therefore conjecture 
with much confidence that the story of Noah 
and the vine originally followed the account of 
his birth, that it was written without reference to 
the Flood, and that it was placed where it now 
stands at a much later time.f 

This disposes of one of the difficulties of the 
passage, but there remains another. Almost im- 
mediately after the story of Noah and the vine, 
occurs the celebrated genealogical table in which 
all the nations of the ancient world known to the 
Hebrews are derived from the three 'sons of 
Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now one thing 
is very plain. If, as we have seen, the story of 
Noah and the vine was not written with reference 
to the Flood, the descendants of Noah described 
in this episode would not have been regarded as 
the ancestors of the whole human race, but only 
of a small part of it. This also is fully corrobo- 
rated by the story itself. One of Noah's sons, as 
we have seen, is Canaan, by whom we can under- 
stand only the ancestor of the people of the West 
Jordan land which Israel knew by that name. 
The eldest son, Shem, whose God is Jahveh, is, of 
course, the ancestor of Israel, to whom alone 
Jahveh revealed Himself. But it cannot be im- 
agined that the writer of this passage believed 
that two-thirds of humanity had descended from 

* Jeremiah, xvi. 7. 

f So, Budde, " Urgeschichte," chapter ix., and Bohmer, " Das 
erste Buch der Thora," p. 140 f. ^ 

(486) 



Shem, Ham and Japheth 



these two nations. The Hebrews never pre- 
tended that many of the nations of the earth were 
closely related to them, and, in the genealogical 
table which follows, far from asserting that one- 
third of the human race had descended from 
Canaan, they mention the Canaanites along with 
the Egyptians and other inhabitants of Africa as 
one of the nations descended from Ham. The 
conclusion to be drawn is this: As the story of 
Noah and the vine had nothing to do with the 
Flood, the three sons of Noah in that story had, if 
I may say so, entirely different values from the 
Shem, Ham and Japheth of the genealogical 
table. In the story of the vine, Shem, Japheth 
and Canaan were not regarded as the ancestors 
of all humanity, but only as the ancestors of three 
nations, of which Israel was one and Canaan was 
another. In the genealogical table of the na- 
tions, however, the condition was wholly differ- 
ent. After the Flood, Noah and his three sons 
are represented as the only men alive. The whole 
human race, therefore, must be descended from 
them. It would never do, however, to say that 
one-third of the human family came from an in- 
significant people like the Canaanites. Accord- 
ingly, the name of Noah's youngest son was 
changed from Canaan to Ham. What is certain 
is that in the genealogical table Shem, Ham and 
Japheth have acquired a kind of symbolical mean- 
ing as the progenitors of the whole human race. 
They are the ancestors of the most diverse peo- 
ples that are grouped together, not through ties 
of blood and language, but for the most part be- 
cause of mere geographical contiguity. We 
should look in vain for any man or nation that 



(487) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

had given birth to races so unlike as those we 
encounter here. When, however, our story of 
Noah and the vine speaks of the three sons of 
Noah, Shem, Japheth and Canaan, it means 
something entirely different. It does not as- 
sume that the whole human race was descended 
from these three men, but only, in accordance 
with ancient ideas, that they had given birth to 
three nations, of which Canaan is one and Israel 
is another. Up to this point the argument is per- 
fectly plain. 

Now let us return to the story. Noah is over- 
come by his own discovery ; the wine — which he 
tasted for the first time, and of whose properties 
he was ignorant — was too potent for him. Canaan 
takes an immodest advantage of his father's help- 
less condition, beholds Noah's shame and irrev- 
erently relates his act to his two brothers. They, 
however, moved by filial piety, enter the tent with 
averted eyes and protect their father from fur- 
ther mortification by covering him with his 
mantle. When Noah awakes and becomes aware 
of what has occurred, he utters a solemn and pro- 
phetical speech. He curses Canaan for his in- 
decency and condemns him to a life of perpetual 
servitude. " Cursed be Canaan, the meanest 
slave let him be to his brothers." And, on the 
other hand, he rewards the honorable conduct of 
Shem and Japheth with a blessing. The richest 
blessing belongs to Shem. Either Noah declares 
him to be the blessed of Jahveh, or he blesses Jah- 
veh, the God of Shem, for his sake. Then, turn- 
ing to Japheth, he says, " God enlarge Japheth, 
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let 
Canaan be their slave." Much of this is per- 

(488) 



Japheth and the Phoenicians 

fectly plain. The inspired writer wishes to con- 
demn the immodesty and sexual immorality of 
the Canaanite, of which we have such terrible ex- 
amples in the earlier parts of the Old Testament. 
As Dillmann finely says, " the fortunes of peo- 
ples are determined in accordance with their 
deeds." Our writer, then, justly traces the weak- 
ness and servility of the peoples of Canaan to 
their unchastity and shameless customs, which 
made them an easy prey to nations more robust 
than themselves. As Canaan certainly repre- 
sents the Canaanites, so by Shem, the blessed of 
Jahveh, we can understand nothing but the pro- 
genitor of Israel. The only question remaining 
is, who was Japheth? We are accustomed, on 
the authority of the genealogical table, to regard 
Japheth as the progenitor of the Indo-Germanic 
family of the nations, but in this passage, which 
does not extend its horizon beyond Palestine, the 
Indo-Germanic race is not thought of. We must 
think rather of a Palestinian people closely re- 
lated to Israel and the Canaanites. Japheth, in 
all probability, was conceived as the ancestor of 
the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians, while speak- 
ing a dialect differing but little from the Hebrew 
idiom, were decidedly superior to the other na- 
tions of Canaan in natural endowment and in all 
the arts of civilization. As their interests seldom 
clashed with those of the Hebrews, the two na- 
tions as a rule were on the most friendly terms, 
and our author prays that this friendship may be 
perpetual. The Phoenicians, separated from the 
rest of Palestine by a wall of lofty mountains, 
which they had the good sense not to attempt to 
cross, were a bulwark rather than a menace to 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Israel. All their conquests were beyond the sea. 
On these the Hebrews could afford to look with 
complacency. Hence the paternal blessing, in- 
fluenced, doubtless, by a profound sense of kin- 
ship, '' God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in 
the tents of Shem." 

It is of interest to remember that the Greeks 
also possessed a myth of the discovery of the vine, 
and that their myth was connected, though indi- 
rectly, with the Flood. Hekataios "^ informs us 
that a dog belonging to Orestheus (the mountain 
man) brought him a twig from which the vine 
grew. According to Hekataios the genealogy is 
De-ucalion, the Flood hero ; Orestheus, the moun- 
taineer; Phytios, the vine grower, and Oineus, 
the wine man. Apollodorus,t however, relates 
the descent of Oineus differently. I have not 
been able to find any Greek legend that accuses 
either of these vine discoverers with being over- 
come by the effect of his discovery, but judging 
from Oineus' association with the wild orgies of 
Dionysos the thought is not far off. 

* " Athen.," 2, p. 35. f Apoll., *' Bib. " i. 7. 



(490) 



The Descent of the Nations 



Chapter Twenty-two: 

The Tradition of the Tower of Babel 

THE tenth chapter of Genesis, which follows 
the story of the Flood, is one of the most 
obscure portions of the whole Bible. It is not 
only obscure, it is for us indecipherable except 
by conjecture. In that chapter the author wishes 
to show how the earth was repeopled after the 
Deluge. Accordingly he constructs a general 
chart for the purpose of showing how the various 
races, peoples and tribes with which he was ac- 
quainted descended from the three sons of Noah. 
He describes the relationships of the nations pre- 
cisely as if they were individual men, and so in- 
deed he regards them. Mizraim, for example, 
the dual name which the Semitic nations be- 
stowed on the two parts of Egypt, is plainly con- 
ceived as a man. One people is supposed to be 
the father, the grandfather or the great-grand- 
father of another. This comparison, however, is 
misleading. Individuals and generations suc- 
ceed one another in time, while races and peoples 
possess at least some permanence. Yet I by no 
means wish to imply that our author was not in- 
fluenced by ancient tradition and to a certain ex- 
tent by profound considerations of language and 
custom. The real difficulty is that we do not 
know many of the peoples to which he refers, or 

(491) 




A Map of the City of Babylon. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

we know them only by conjecture. Who were 
Magog and Elishah, and Tubal and Sabtecha? 
Probably we shall never certainly discover. It 
seems to me, therefore, perfectly useless to at- 
tempt to discuss these problems within the brief 
compass of a lecture. I therefore refer you to the 
marvellous wealth of learning lavished on this 
difificult theme by Lenormant in the second and 
third volumes of his " Les Origines " (which, I 
venture to say, not a dozen persons living have 
read through), and I pass over this chapter alto- 
gether. Instead of wearying you with conjec- 
tures on mere names, I will conclude with a story 
full of life and energy, the last of those fascinating 
notices of the beginnings of human culture. In 
the eleventh chapter of Genesis we read : 

I, 2. The whole earth had but one speech and one kind of 
words. And it came to pass as they were journeying 
around in the East that they found a low plain in the land 
of Shinar [Mesopotamia] and settled there. 

3. And they said to one another, " Come now, let us 
make bricks and burn them hard." So brick served for 
building stones and asphalt for mortar, 

4. And they said, " Now, good! we will build us a city 
and a tower with its top in the heavens [on the sky], and 
we will make us a monument so that we may not be scat- 
tered over the whole earth." 

5. Then Jahveh came down to inspect the city and the 
tower which the children of men began to build. 

Here something is evidently omitted. Jah- 
veh's return to his lofty abode and the assembling 
of his heavenly counsellors are not mentioned. 

6. 7. And Jahveh said: " One people are they, and they all 
have the same language, and this is [only] the beginning 
of their doings, and soon they will be debarred from noth- 
ing which they wish to undertake. Come, now, let us de- 
scend and confound their language, so that one shall not 
be able to understand the speech of another." 

(492) 



The Tower and the Flood 



This is one of the most distinctly polytheistic 
verses in the Bible. It expresses not only Jah- 
veh's need of taking counsel with his associates, 
but of securing their cooperation in the execu- 
tion of his plan. It reminds us strikingly of the 
conferences of the gods in Babylonian and Greek 
mythology. This strange element (which one 
feels must come from a foreign source) disap- 
pears in the next verse. It is Jahveh alone who 
really acts. 

8. So Jahveh scattered them abroad from thence over the 
face of the whole earth, so that they left ofif building their 
city, 

9. Therefore was it called Babel [confusion], because 
there Jahveh scattered them over the face of the whole 
earth. 

Before we go any further we ought to deter- 
mine at what point in the history of mankind this 
singular occurrence is supposed to have taken 
place. There is one great event in the Book of 
Genesis which, so to speak, cuts the history of 
the world in two; that is the Flood, in which 
almost the whole human race is supposed to have 
perished. How stands the Tower of Babel with 
reference to the Flood? Strange to say, there 
seems to be no relation between the two. The 
Tower of Babel could not have been erected be- 
fore the Flood, for the very purpose of the story 
is to show how the various nations and languages 
now in existence arose. Neither could the build- 
ing of the Tower and the miraculous dispersion 
have taken place after the Flood, for the author 
of the tenth chapter, which also contains Jeho- 
vistic material, has been at great pains to inform 
us how all the nations known to him descended 



(493) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

from the three sons of Noah in a perfectly nat- 
ural and orderly manner, without a hint that the 
dispersion of the nations was caused by so sin- 
gular a miracle. What proves this conclusively 
is the fact that in the tenth chapter the founding 
of Babel is mentioned as an act of Nimrod, but no 
allusion is made to the building of the Tower or 
to the confusion of tongues. We are therefore 
obliged to suppose that the story of the Tower of 
Babel, like most ancient traditions of this sort, is 
complete in itself, and was composed without 
reference to the Flood. The only allusion to the 
time at which the event took place is a very gen- 
eral one, '' It came to pass as they were journey- 
ing around in the East." This reminds us of the 
introduction to the story of the Sons of God (a 
narrative of the same order), '' It came to pass as 
men began to multiply on the earth," and evi- 
dently points to the earliest times. The whole 
human family is still together, forming one 
horde, speaking one language, and without a 
settled habitation. 

From the exclusive employment of the word 
Jahveh, it is evident that our narrative forms part 
of the Jehovist's document. From certain verbal 
indications, and more especially from its rehgious 
conceptions, it appears to have been written by 
the author of the Garden of Eden narrative. 
Jahveh is conceived even more naively. The 
conception of God, indeed, is one of the crud- 
est in the whole Bible. Jahveh is obliged to 
come down from his lofty abode to see what 
men are really doing. His invitation to his com- 
panions, " Come, now, let us go down and con- 
found their language," is expressed in terms 

(494) 



No Babylonian Tradition 



that scarcely veil the polytheism of the thought. 
Moreover, his naif fear of the invasion of his 
realm is stated with a candor that far surpasses 
the language of the Garden of Eden narrative. 
The question therefore arises, whether this is a 
native Hebrew tradition of great age, or whether 
our author had before him a Babylonian legend 
of somewhat the same scope, whose mythological 
allusions were still cruder and more naif. I must 
say at the outset that the Babylonian legend of 
the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, 
which George Smith thought he had discovered 
and which Sayce has repeatedly announced, has 
proved to contain no allusion whatever to either 
of these myths, and up to this time no such 
Babylonian tradition has been discovered. Aby- 
denus pretends to have found a description of the 
Tower of Babel in the history of Berosus, which 
adds nothing to our story except that the Tower 
was destroyed by wind. But on this point the 
silence of Josephus is decisive. Several Sibylline 
poems describing the Tower of Babel have fre- 
quently been cited, but they also depend exclu- 
sively on the story of Genesis, elaborated in the 
manner of the Jewish Haggada. There is no 
doubt that the Genesis narrative implies some 
familiarity with the general conditions of ancient 
Babylonia. The land of Shinar, which is properly 
described as a low-lying plain, is a Hebrew form 
of the southern Babylonian shumir,'^ sumer. The 
conception of Babylonia as the dwelling place of a 
composite population speaking Semitic and non- 
Semitic languages, is also historically correct. 
The enormous ziggurats which once rose hun- 

*Schrader, ''K. A. T.," ii8. 



(495) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

dreds of feet into the air above low-lying Baby- 
lonia, might well be described as towers, and the 
description of their materials, burnt brick ce- 
mented with asphalt, is also quite accurate. 
These, however, are points of general informa- 
tion which would be known to people dwelling in 
the neighborhood of that country. On the other 
hand, the purpose for which the Tower was 
raised, almost as a defiance of Heaven, is alto- 
gether opposed to the Babylonians' conception 
of their temples; and the care of the writer in 
describing the building material also implies 
that he was a foreigner. A Babylonian writer 
would have taken the brick and the asphalt for 
granted. We also notice that a distinctively 
Hebrew word {chemar) is used for the asphalt, 
not the Babylonian kupru (Hebrew, kopher^ of 
the Flood story. In any case, the connection of 
Babylon with the Confusion of Tongues never 
originated with a Babylonian writer, because it 
rests on a misapprehension of the meaning of the 
name of Babel. The writer of Genesis evidently 
associated Babel with the Hebrew word balbel 
(from balla), which means about what we under- 
stand by a babel of sound, whereas, according to 
all scholars. Babel was really Bdb-il, or Bdb-Uu; 
later, Bdb-ildni, Gate of the Gods. The concep- 
tion of Babylon as the first centre of humanity 
might be natural to a Babylonian writer, but not 
the idea that the first inhabitants were driven 
abroad by a curse. It has been frequently con- 
jectured that the tower in question was the cel- 
ebrated tower of Borsippa, which, after lying in 
a state of decay for many generations, was re- 
stored by Nebuchadnezzar. Although it is ob- 

' (496) 



Analysis of Story 



jected that we ought to look in Babylon itself 
rather than in Borsippa, for the site of our Tower 
of Babel, it is tempting to suppose that our tra- 
dition was suggested by this gigantic ruin, which 
was no longer employed for religious purposes, 
and whose original use might have been forgot- 
ten. If any Babylonian tradition similar to ours 
had attached itself to this old ruin, we might well 
expect some allusion to it in Nebuchadnezzar's 
detailed account of the restoration of the build- 
ing. As to the discontinuance of the building of 
this temple in consequence of a divine warning 
or a divine judgment, Nebuchadnezzar says noth- 
ing, but merely affirms that his god put it into his 
heart to restore the temple which a former king 
had begun but had not finished. I do not there- 
fore believe that any complete parallel to the 
account of the Tower of Babel existed in Baby- 
lonian literature. If any story of this nature is 
found in Babylonia, it will lack several important 
features of our narrative, as Canon Cheyne 
rightly affirms. We must therefore consider our 
story by itself. 

Short as it is, this story is composite, and con- 
sists of three distinct parts, w^hich I shall consider 
separately: (i) The myth of the confusion of 
tongues and the dispersion of mankind; (2) the 
founding of the city of Babylon ; (3) the building 
of the tower, which is closely connected with the 
myth. 

I. It has been freely asserted, I know not on 
what authority, that the myth of the confusion 
of tongues, in connection with the erection of a 
tower or pyramid, is not an uncommon tradition 
among the various nations of the earth. I ob- 



32 (497) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

serve, however, that the authors of statements 
to this effect do not seem to be very sure of their 
ground. Cheyne * asserts that one of the best 
authenticated examples of this was found by Liv- 
ingstone in Africa. On turning to Livingstone, 
I see that he says he has come across a story 
similar to that of the Tower of Babel, but he 
omits to tell us what that story is, and we are 
therefore unable to judge as to its merits or 
its source. t Andrew White, J who, in 1896, 
ought not to have repeated Sayce's fable of the 
Tower of Babel, cites among other authorities 
for this opinion, Brinton, Franz Delitzsch and 
John Fiske. Brinton, § however, dismisses the 
subject by saying that the American myth of the 
confusion of tongues " is of doubtful authentic- 
ity " ; Delitzsch II says pointedly that up to this 
time no independent parallel has been discovered 
in profane literature ; and John Fiske |f merely 
compares the play on the word Babel with a sim- 
ilar mythical pun on Antwerp. Liiken, whose 
work on the '' Traditions of Mankind " would be 
of incomparable interest were it not written in 
a spirit of childish credulity, discovers parallels 

* Art. Babel in Encyc. Biblica. 

f "Missionary Travels," Harper Bros., 1858, p. 567. From 
the fact that Livingstone mentions on the same page a native 
story resembling that of Solomon and the harlots, and as he tells 
us he found traces of European traders among this tribe, we 
may suspect Biblical influence, as he evidently suspected it. 

X " Warfare of Science," etc., ii. 173. I cannot help express- 
ing my surprise at Dr. White's treatment of this subject. So far 
as I can ascertain, he bases his argument almost exclusively on 
the unscientific work of T. W. Doane, " Bible Myths," and does 
not even take the trouble to verify Doane's references to obsolete 
works. 

^ " Myths of the New World," 240. 

II " Neuer Commentar liber die Genesis," 233. 

■JT " Myths and Mythmakers," 72. 

(498) 



Myths of Confusion of Tongues 

to the Tower of Babel from one end of the world 
to the other, in ancient and modern literatures. 
But all his examples that I have been able to 
verify either fade away utterly or reduce them- 
selves to faint and shadowy resemblances.* So 
far as I have been able to ascertain, independent 
myths of the confounding of tongues are by no 
means common. Grimm, for example, in his 
great '' Deutsche Mythologie," cites no instance 
of confusion of tongues (sprachverwirrung). 
The best authenticated instances of such a tradi- 
tion, I suppose, are those of the Mexicans and 
of neighboring American tribes, at which I shall 
now glance. 

A Flood tradition of the Toltecs mentioned by 
IxtHhochitl states that after the Deluge men built 
a zacuali of great height to preserve them in the 
event of future deluges. '' After this their tongue 
became confused, and not understanding each 
other, they went to different parts of the 
world." t This Flood story bears unmistakable 
resemblances to Genesis, even in the incident of 
the water standing fifteen cubits over the moun- 
tains. In general, I would say that any so-called 
parallel to the Tower of Babel narrative that is 
closely connected with the story of the Flood (as 

* E. g., the " Persian Tradition of Babel " reduces itself to the 
fact that in the reign of King Takhmorup (Tahmuraf) men are 
said to have passed on the back of the ox, Sursaok, to other re- 
gions (" Bundahesh," ch. xvii. 4), which is at most a tradition of 
dispersion. Gerstacker's "Australian Language Myth" and 
Kohl's "Cooking of Languages" bear not the slightest resem- 
blance to the Tower of Babel. In Gerstacker, an old woman 
dies and is eaten, and those who eat different parts of her body 
speak different languages. 

f Quoted by Bancroft, " Native Races of the Pacific States," 
vol. V. 18-21. 

(499) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

are several Mexican tales, the story of the tower 
of Conan in Ireland, the tradition of the 
Basques,* etc.), ought on its face to be re- 
jected. In Genesis the connection between 
the Flood and the Tower of Babel, as we have 
shown, is purely fortuitous, and the recurrence 
of this connection in other literatures is proof 
positive that the tradition is not original. From 
the regions of Arizona and New Mexico, among 
the curious myths related of Montezuma, we 
read that this legendary hero once attempted to 
build a vast house which should reach to Heaven 
itself. The Great Spirit, irritated by his under- 
taking, sent an insect flying to the East, which 
brought the Spaniards. There is no very strik- 
ing resemblance between this story and ours, be- 
yond the attempt to scale Heaven. Yet the fact 
that the very name of Montezuma is supposed to 
have been introduced into America by the Span- 
iards renders the myths related of him obnoxious 
to the suspicion of Christian influence. f 

Still another Mexican tradition is related of a 
certain giant Xelhua, the architect, who, after the 
Deluge, built an artificial mountain at Cholula 
as a memorial of the mountain that had shel- 
tered him. As the huge pyramid rose slowly to 
the sky, the anger of the gods awoke. They 
launched fire on the builders and the work 
ceased. This legend contains no allusion to the 
confusion of tongues. 

By far the most celebrated of all these Mexi- 
can Flood and Babel traditions is that of Coxcox, 

* See Luken, "Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts," 
316 ff. 

f See Bancroft, op. cit., iii. p. 77. 

(500) 



Babel Tradition of Mexico 



which I have already discussed. After the Flood, 
it is said, the children of Coxcox and Xochi- 
quetzal were born dumb, " and a dove came and 
gave them innumerable languages. Only fifteen 
of the descendants of Coxcox, who afterward 
became heads of famiHes, spoke the same lan- 
guage or could understand each other." Ban- 
croft, relying on the authority of Don Jose Fer- 
nando Ramirez, Conservator of the Mexican 
National Museum, beheves that the whole story 
of the escape of Coxcox in a flood, the multipli- 
cation of languages, etc., rests on a false interpre- 
tation of the Mexican picture-writings. Rami- 
rez asserts that these picture-writings, from 
which such wonderful tales have been con- 
structed by von Humboldt, Clavigero, Kings- 
borough and others, really relate nothing more 
than a migration of the Mexicans along the Mex- 
ican valley. The little bird merely says, '' Let us 
go " ; the boat, the mountain, etc., are only 
hieroglyphic signs indicating proper names.* 
If this be true, as Brinton also seems to think,t 
the Mexican story of the Tower of Babel, and 
with it the most popular Mexican Flood story, 
collapses. 

There are, however, two conceptions contained 
in the Tower of Babel narrative which are widely 
diffused. One is the attempt of mortals or giants 
to scale Heaven, and the other is the tradition 
that all men originally spoke the same language. 
As to the first, it is enough to remind ourselves of 
the Greek stories of the Titans and the Aloadse. 
The Titans' attempt to storm heaven belongs 

* See Bancroft, op. cit,, iii. pp. 67, 68. 
f *' Myths of the New World," 240-1. 



(501) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

rather to the mythical cycle of Tiamat and Rahab. 
It is the revolt of the elements, the resistance of 
the wild, uncurbed forces of Nature to the reign 
of law. The Aloadse, Otos and Ephialtes, at- 
tempted to pile Ossa on Olympus and Pelion on 
Ossa, and so to rise to the gods. On account 
of their youth, they were not able to execute their 
design, and Apollo killed them.* Whether we 
regard them with Creutzer as revolutions of the 
earth, as light deities, or as forces of Nature, they 
bear shght resemblance to the heroes of the 
Tower of Babel. 

The closest parallel to the Tower of Babel that 
I have been able to find in Hindu literature is the 
attempt of the Asuras to imitate the great fire 
altar of the gods. This fire altar, which is de- 
scribed at wearisome length in the Satapatha 
Brahmana, is represented as rising from the earth 
to Heaven. The Asuras, the enemies of the 
heavenly gods, tried to imitate it, and, as we are 
repeatedly assured, their undertaking came to 
nothing. Dr. Hopkins kindly informs me that 
when their altar nearly reached the sky, the gods 
overthrew it by withdrawing one of its founda- 
tion bricks. The description of this event runs 
as follows: 

The Asuras then constructed the fire-altar . . . think- 
ing, " Thereby shall we ascend to the sky." Indra then con- 
sidered, " If they construct that [fire-altar] they will cer- 
tainly prevail over us." He secured a brick and proceeded 
thither, passing himself ofif for a Brahman. " Hark ye," 
he said, " I, too, will put on this brick for myself." " Very 
well," they replied. He put it on. That fire [altar] of 
theirs wanted but very little to be completely built up. 

Then he said, " I shall take back this [brick] which be- 
longs to me." He took hold of it and pulled it out; and on 

* Homer's Iliad, 5, 385 ff., and Od. 11, 305. 
(502) 



Hindu and African Babel Myths 

its being pulled out, the fire-altar fell down; and along with 
the falling fire-altar the Asuras fell down. He then con- 
verted those bricks into thunderbolts and clove the 
[Asuras'] walls.* 

In one place in the Satapatha Brahmana f 
the failure of the Asuras is attributed to the 
fact that they did not lay the bricks of their 
altar after the manner of the gods. It is 
also said that the Asuras built themselves three 
castles — an iron one in this world, a silver one 
in the air and a golden one in the sky J — 
which the gods besieged and overthrew. It is 
also stated in another place that the gods de- 
prived the Asuras of speech. § These resem- 
blances, however, are very remote. The mar- 
vellous story of the Hindu world-tree described 
as a source of confusion of tongues and disper- 
sion (which Dr. White borrows from Doane, and 
Doane from Baring-Gould, and Baring-Gould 
from Niklas MiillerU), appears to be a modern 
fable. At least, Dr. Hopkins informs me that he 
has no knowledge of it in Sanskrit literature. 

One of the best primitive stories bearing on 
this theme which I have been able to discover, is 
contained in Petermann's "Mittheilungen." The 
tale comes from Akwapim land,1j in Africa. It 
is true, the collection of folk lore in which this 
story occurs was communicated by a Christian 
missionary, but the other myths and legends 
contained in it seem to be quite original. 

* Sat. Brahm., ii. i, 2, 13-16. 
X Ibid, viii. 4, 4, 3. 
X Ibid. iii. 4, 4, 3 and 4. 
§ Ibid. iii. 2, i, 23. 

II " Warfare of Science," ii. p. 171 ; Doane's "Bible Myths," 
36 ; Baring-Gould's " Legends of the Patriarchs," 148. 
% North of Akkra, and belonging to Ashantee. 

(503) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

The negroes relate that their old ancestors used to tell 
them they once wished to undertake something which 
should enable them to rise to Nyankupon [the high town 
or heaven]. To carry out this project they heaped up all 
their fufu mortars [fufu is a favorite dish composed of 
yams or pisang fruit beaten into pulp]. One more mortar 
was necessary to reach up, but they had not another one. 
Then they decided to draw out the lowest mortar and to 
place it on top. They did so, and behold, the whole struc- 
ture fell in a heap, and they escaped death only by running 
away. In their sudden terror they spoke new languages. 
Hence it comes about that so many tongues are spoken. 
Formerly there was only one speech.* 

This is either the Hebrew story profoundly 
transformed, or a very curious parallel to it. 

The belief that all men originally spoke one 
language is so natural that we might expect to 
find it widely diffused. In Genesis it is tacitly 
assumed that Hebrew was the language of God, 
of Paradise and of the earliest human beings. 
What an incredible amount of talent and labor 
has been bestowed to prove this thesis true! 
Nowhere in the world do we find this conviction 
more firmly established than in Egypt. The 
Egyptians, hke the Hebrews, beheved that their 
language was, in a peculiar sense, the language 
of Heaven. This is proved by many statements 
of pyramid-texts. The very language of these 
texts, the so-called hieroglyphic language which 
differed widely from the spoken and written ver- 
nacular, was called '' the language of God." f 
The Chinese, Hkewise, entertained a similar con- 
ception of their tongue. Plato, in the oft-cited 
passage of " Politicus," % in his beautiful myth of 

* " Mittheilung aus Justus Perthes' Geog. Anstalt,"von Dr. A. 
Petermann, Gotha, 1856, S. 466. 

f See Brugsch Bey, " Steinschrift und Bibelwort," S. 42. 

t P. 372. _____ 

(504) 



Examples from Greek Literature 

the children of Kronos, assumes that all human 
beings were once able to converse with one an- 
other and also with the animals. This, however, 
took place in a former cycle of time, which was 
ended by a world catastrophe. In ^schylus' 
*' Prometheus " * there is a highly scientific ac- 
count of the process of civilization and the begin- 
nings of culture, in which the invention o'f letters 
is ascribed to Prometheus. Perhaps the closest 
parallel in Greek Hterature to the problem of the 
Tower of Babel is Herodotus' celebrated story 
of the Egyptian king Psammetichus.f Psam- 
metichus, you will remember, in order to ascer- 
tain which was the original human language, 
caused two children to be brought up absolutely 
out of sound of the human voice. The first sound 
they uttered was bekos, which was regarded as 
the Phrygian word for bread. Phrygian, there- 
fore, was considered to be the original language 
of man. From the selection of Phrygian as the 
original language rather than the manifestly 
older Egyptian tongue, it would seem that the 
experiment was actually made as Herodotus de- 
scribes it. In any case, we have here a plain 
allusion to an ancient belief in one universal, 
original language. But we may assume that if 
Herodotus had been aware of any other legend 
similar to that of the Tower of Babel, he would 
have related it here. Pliny, in several passages, 
refers to the astonishing diversity of human lan- 
guages, but offers no theory to account for their 
origin. $ 

* 440-483. f Book ii. ch. 2. 

J I am indebted for these allusions to the kindness of a thor- 
ough student of classical literature, my friend, Dr. J. H. McDan- 
iels. Professor of Greek in Hobart College. 

(5^5) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

In the Old Testament, community of speech 
and intercourse has a decidedly religious mean- 
ing. Not to be able to understand another is, if 
not exactly a curse, a punishment.* In our 
story the confusion of tongues is regarded in 
that light. The prophets f look forward to 
the time when the dispersed of the Gentiles 
shall flock from the four winds to the Mount of 
Jahveh, when the veil shall be taken away 
and the whole world shall hear the voice of 
God and shall speak one language. J This hope 
was believed to be realized on the day of Pente- 
cost, when representatives of every nation heard 
the Apostles speak '' every man in his own 
tongue." We remember, also, that the '' inter- 
pretation of tongues " was one of the peculiar 
gifts of the Holy Ghost, and, in the light of this 
old tradition, we can better understand the nature 
of the mysterious gift of tongues. Now, there is 
a very curious conception running through the 
Zend Avesta, even in its oldest parts. Few 
names occur more frequently in the Avesta than 
Sraosha, one of the chief spirits in the service of 
Ahura Mazda. His name is translated " Listen- 
ing obedience." Burnouf § af^rms that the word 
includes the ideas of listening, obedience and 

* Deut. xxviii. 49 ; Jer. v. 15. 

f Is. xix. 18. 

X The Zoroastrians likewise entertained the belief that one uni- 
versal language would come into being at the Resurrection. It 
is said in Denkart (2, 81, 6) "that all men will become of one 
voice, and administer praise to Ahuramazd and the archangels." 
So also Plutarch in the Isis and Osiris (47, 9) says : " The earth 
will become smooth and level ; there will be one life and one state 
of all mankind, who are then blessed, and have one speech." 

I am indebted for these two references to the kindness of Dr. 
A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University. 

§ " Commentaire sur le Ya9na," p. 42. 

(506) 



Counterpart of Babel Myth 

speech. He is the incarnation of the word of 
God. " The Word of God is his body." He re- 
ceives and transmits the word of Ahura Mazda. 
He it is who makes the word of God intelHgible 
to men. In short, the doctrine of the Word which 
appears in so many hteratures is the very anti- 
thesis to the Babel of Genesis, the necessary re- 
ligious counterpart to the confusion of tongues. 
A similar conception was entertained by the 
Buddhists of India. When Buddha preached to 
thousands and tens of thousands, whatever their 
nationality, all comprehended him, and every one 
felt that Buddha was addressing him alone. The 
very animals understood him. You will observe 
that Plato also speaks of animals as understand- 
ing the speech of men, and in the Garden of Eden 
also this seems to have been the case. The ani- 
mals received their names from Adam, and the fact 
that Jahveh brought them to him to see if among 
them a helpmate might be found for him, seems to 
imply that Adam could communicate with them. 
At all events, the conversation of the serpent ex- 
cites no surprise, and is accepted as a matter of 
course. Before the dispersion Jahveh is repre- 
sented as speaking to different men, even to sin- 
ners like Cain, and as speaking Hebrew.* But 
after the confusion of tongues he speaks only 
to the chosen descendants of Shem, to Abraham 
and his seed, while to the other members of the 
human race he is dumb. 

He has made known his word to Jacob, 
His laws and statutes unto Israel: 

* That Hebrew was conceived as the original language of the 
world is proved by such plays on words as are contained in the 
names of Eve, Cain, Seth, etc. 

(507) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Not thus has he dealt with any other people, 
No other knows his commandments.* 

The Parsees also spoke of birds as " the 
tongues of the gods who spoke the language of 
heaven," and who at the bidding of the Magi ut- 
tered the word of righteousness to the king of 
Babylon.f The belief in a universal language, 
understood even by animals, seems to have been 
not uncommon in antiquity. What rendered this 
belief religious is the fact that this language was 
conceived as the language of Heaven. In this 
tongue God spoke to men, and, when the lan- 
guages were confounded, the majority could no 
longer understand Him and their religious fel- 
lowship was broken. This thought is plainly 
brought out in our narrative, especially if we con- 
sider this chapter of Genesis in the light of the 
belief entertained at the time it was written; and 
it invests the myth with a religious meaning 
which, so far as I know, has not been recognized. 

2. The founding of Babylon. 

We pass now to the second element of this 
narrative. Why the confusion of tongues and 
the consequent dispersion of the human race were 
associated with Babylon it is not difficult to see. 
The city of Babylon, although probably not the 
oldest city of Babylonia, is old enough to be re- 
garded by the Hebrews as the first rallying point 
of the human race. In the bilingual Creation tab- 
let it is spoken of as coeval with Erech and Nip- 
pur, cities which existed before the dawn of his- 
tory.J At the time of the composition of this 

* Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. See also Deut. iv. 7 and 8. 
f Philostratus' " Vit. ApoUonii," i. 25. 
X Encyc. Bib., art. Babylon. 

(5^8) 



The First Cities 



portion of Genesis, its commanding importance 
would cause Babylon to be preferred to other 
cities as the first centre of mankind. It is true, 
cities have been mentioned before the Flood, but 
these cities naturally cannot be identified. This 
tradition, therefore, is that the first actual city of 
the world was Babylon, and that the founding of 
Babylon marks the transition from a nomadic to 
a settled life. 

Why is it that among the mythical recollec- 
tions of our own family of the nations we find no 
such tradition as this? Obviously because in 
the most ancient times our Aryan ancestors pos- 
sessed no cities. The Romans had a singular 
and interesting story to tell of Romulus and the 
founding of Rome. The Greeks possessed tra- 
ditions of the founding of Athens and other ^ 
cities. But neither Greeks nor Romans pre- 
tended that their cities were the first cities, be- 
cause they knew better. As late as the first cen- 
tury after Christ, when our Teutonic forefathers 
came under the eye of the Roman historian Taci- 
tus, they were still wandering without a perma- 
nent abode. The plain fact is that from time im- 
memorial the Babylonians had cities and lived in 
them, and this fact is the key to their wonderful 
development of all the arts and sciences of civ- 
ilization, which passed from Babylon to the rest 
of the world. On this point Ihering's arguments 
are decisive, one or two of which I here repro- 
duce. The motive given by our author for the 
building of the first city is that it may be a place 
of permanent abode. This motive is absolutely 
correct. The more man puts into the soil the 
more firmly he is anchored to it. Nowhere in 



(509) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

the world is the contrast between a wandering 
life and a settled life in cities more striking than 
in America. Our ancestors very soon made per- 
manent abodes for themselves. When it was pos- 
sible they built cities, and those cities proved to 
be centres of civilization, which in an incredibly 
short time have transformed this continent. In 
a city, as Ihering says, a thousand times, ten 
thousand times as much is entrusted to the soil 
as in an agricultural district of the same area. 
Therefore every city is built for eternity. '' No 
people ever abandoned a city it once inhabited 
unless compelled to do so by the most terrible 
misfortunes." We know the strange and sad im- 
pression produced on us by a deserted village, a 
hamlet, a few houses; but a great city voluntarily 
forsaken by its inhabitants no one has ever 
seen. 

The second great result of the city is the de- 
velopment of the arts of civilization. The very 
word civilization means the condition of life in 
cities. Outside the charmed sphere of religion 
and poetry, few important discoveries have been 
made by nomadic peoples. Why is it then that 
our author regards the building of the first city 
with so much dislike? First, I believe, because 
the ways of city life were strange to him. He 
belonged to a people that only recently had 
emerged from its pastoral stage. All their 
fondest associations were with a simple pastoral 
life, a life so exquisitely portrayed in the biog- 
raphies of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the youth- 
ful David. The Hebrews in the Jehovist's day 
possessed no great cities, and but one small tem- 
ple; they had no science, no art, and little worldly 



Hebrew Dislike of Cities 



knowledge. But they possessed a conception of 
God and the moral life of man which their more 
civilized neighbors never attained. Their God, 
whether He was called Elohim or Jahveh, was 
destined to become the absolute and sole God of 
the universe, the God whom all men who are not 
heathen adore, whether they call themselves 
Christians, Jews or Mohammedans. 

We should remember also what civilization 
meant in those days. The two forms of civiliza- 
tion best known to the Hebrew were the Baby- 
lonian and the Phoenician, and to his simple and 
serious way of looking on life their cities seemed 
the very dens of impurity. Both these nations 
possessed enormous riches, but in a life without 
ideals, riches lead to corruption. They had re- 
Hgions fascinating to the vulgar on account of 
the splendor of their ceremonies and the sensual 
intoxication of their rites. But to the eye of the 
stern Hebrew monotheist a large part of these 
religions seemed a tissue of ridiculous and de- 
grading falsehoods. They possessed an art 
without beauty, used to depict a multitude 
of gods and goddesses whose very names 
sounded abominably in his ears. They had mag- 
nificent temples, but those temples were the seat 
of an impure service. In short, the pious and 
thoughtful Israelite found in the cities with 
which he was acquainted little to admire and 
much to condemn. Comparing the life of his civ- 
ilized contemporaries with his own traditions, he 
felt that every step taken in this direction was an 
affront to God. This may account for the atti- 
tude of our writer toward the city of Babylon, 
which fascinated and terrified him. 



(Sii) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

3. The Tower of Babel. 

The motives which led our author to associate 
the confusion of tongues and the subsequent dis- 
persion of the human race with the building of a 
tower, are not so apparent. The reasons why 
Babylon was selected as the scene of the disper- 
sion have already been given. As we have seen, 
they rest on good and genuine tradition. The 
association of the myth of the confusion of 
tongues with a tower in Babylon, however, seems 
to have been more fortuitous. The Babylonian 
style of architecture, which was unique, must 
'have struck the Hebrews with surprise. In par- 
ticular their gigantic ziggurats,^ or temple 
towers, which dotted the low plain of Babylonia 
like mountains, seemed to them too vast to be 
normal, while their great age was very apparent. 
The Hebrews, therefore, were inclined to refer 
them to a more powerful race of beings, or to 
men living under different conditions from those 
which now prevail. The thought might also 
occur, — if men performed such feats in the infancy 
of the race, what might not such proud and dar- 
ing beings have undertaken if their pride had 
been allowed to develop unshackled? Towers so 
high seemed almost an insult to Jahveh, and as if 
intended to invade his domain. We know very 
well the impression made by the great architec- 
tural monuments of the past, especially on peo- 

* Ziggurat is a Babylonian word, now generally employed to 
describe the huge pyramidal structures which rose above certain 
Babylonian temples. It must not be supposed that all Babylo- 
nian and Assyrian temples were built with ziggnrats. On the 
contrary, the number of temples which once bore these gigantic 
superstructures is relatively small. See Dr. J. P. Peters, "Jour- 
nal of Bib. Lit.," 1896, p. 107. 



Origin of the Story of Babel 

pie who had no sense of their original purpose. 
How many legends arose during the Middle 
Ages to account for the buildings of pagan Rome! 
What emotions have not been caused by the sight 
of a number of large stones laid in a circle ! Much 
more were the gigantic temple-towers of Baby- 
lonia calculated to strike astonishment into the 
heart of the Bedouin of the desert, or the pastoral 
tribes of Canaan. Having only the faintest idea 
of the purpose of these strange structures, the 
Hebrews naturally invented the most singular 
stories to account for them. Some one ruined 
or incomplete ziggurat (it is hard not to think of 
Borsippa) seems to have been the historical nu- 
cleus of the story of the Tower of Babel. Such 
a work must have required the strength of a 
united humanity, which would have carried its 
bold project to completion had it not been foiled 
by Heaven. The last incentive, in fact, to the 
formation of the narrative, would be furnished by 
the conglomeration of races which from the 
earHest times jostled one another in Babylon,* 
and by the name of the city itself, whose mean- 
ing, as we have seen, the Hebrews wholly mis- 
took. 

What particular structure suggested this nar- 
rative we cannot say. An interesting Septuagint 
reading of Isaiah x. 9 mentions " the country 

* It is very evident that previous to the Exile the Hebrews 
were totally ignorant of the languages of Babylonia and Assyria. 
This fact Jeremiah employs to add terror to the approach of the 
invader. " Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from afar, 
House of Israel. It is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a 
nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest 
what they say." — Jer. v. 15. Deut. (xxviii. 49) also speaks of " a 
nation as swift as the eagle flieth, whose tongue thou shalt not 
understand." 

33 (513) 



Genesis in tHE Light of Modern Knowledge 




(514) 



Various Mounds 



above Babylon and Calneh (an unknown city- 
near Babylon), where the tower was built." 
Nothing, however, can be inferred from this at 
present. Among the various mounds associated 




BIRS-NIMRUD 



at different times with the Tower of Babel 
are : 

1. Tell-Nimrud, west of Bagdad (Balbi, Fitch 
and John Cartwright). 

2. The great mound now called Babil on the 
left bank of the Euphrates, in the northern quar- 
ter of the city. 

3. The so-called Birs-Nimrud of Borsippa, 

(515) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

which lay at the southwest corner of the city 
proper. 

4. More recently the hill called Amran Ibn 
Ali, south of the so-called palace. Only the 
last three need be considered. Of these, Babil 
is said by travellers to be the most impos- 
ing. It still rises, according to Oppert, forty 
metres above the surface, and is over five hundred 
feet long. Oppert believes it to be identical with 
the temple destroyed by Xerxes, which Strabo 
called Belus' tomb. Its sheer form renders this 
probable. Schrader * is of the opinion that this 
mound represents the great temple of Babylon, 
originally called E-sagila, or lofty temple. It is 
true, Strabo speaks of this temple as dedicated 
to Bel, while E-sagila was really a shrine of 
Merodach, as we know from the inscriptions.! 
It is well known, however, that the name Bel, or 
lord, was applied to Merodach as a title of honor. 
Rawlinson's idea that Babil is the Temple of 
Belus, described by Herodotus, is incorrect, as 
Schrader shows, for Babil displays no signs of the 
terraced stories of which Herodotus speaks, and, 
moreover, it lies on the left (east) bank of the 
Euphrates, on the same side as the royal palace, 
whereas Herodotus states that the river flowed 
between these buildings. How old Babil may be 
(still supposing it to be identical with the great 
E-sagila) J we can only conjecture. We know 
from Nebuchadnezzar's inscription that it was 
restored by him. It is mentioned a hundred years 
earlier by Tiglath-pileser III. and Asarhaddon, 
the latter of whom found it in a dilapidated con- 

* See his fine article, Babel, in Riehm's " Handworterbuch." 
f Collect. Ea. India House, col. ii. 40 ff. ; iii. i ff. 

(1^6) 



BiRS-NlMRUD 



dition and rebuilt it. Dr. Peters, standing on 
this mound in 1889, picked up a brick bearing 
the inscription " Nabopolassar." * We may sup- 
pose it to have been a very ancient sanctuary. 
Richjf however^ beHeved that the mound Babil 
is rather to be associated with the celebrated 
hanging gardens of Babylon, and since Rassam 
has discovered four wells of granite one hundred 
and forty feet deep beneath this mound, which 
it may be presumed were used to water the gar- 
dens, this opinion has gained ground. If, how- 
ever, we give up Babil as the site of the Temple 
of Belus {E-sagila), we must then look for the re- 
mains of that great building in the mounds of Am- 
ran ben AH, or El Kasr, where, so far as I know, 
nothing of consequence has as yet been found. 

I turn then to the celebrated Birs-Nimrud, or 
Nimrod Tower of Borsippa, which lies on the 
other side of Babylon in a suburb called Barsip, 
or Borsippa, but, according to Schrader, still 
within the southwest angle of the wall. After 
Babil, this is, perhaps, the chief ruin of the 
city. It consists of a great mound of yellow sand 
and brick which, according to Layard, still rises 
198 feet above the earth. Its upper surface is 
surmounted by massive brick walls, 37 feet 
high and 28 feet thick, so that its total height is 
about 235 feet. Its original height is estimated 
thus : Base, 75 feet, plus seven stories of 25 feet 
each, making 250 feet.J The terraced formation 

* " Journal of Bib. Lit.," 1896, p. 106. 

f C. J. Rich, on the topography of ancient Babylon, in his 
"Babylon and Persepolis," London, 1839. See pp. 43-104 and 

107-179- 

X It is astonishing- that in all these centuries this great mass of 
brick has subsided so little. 



(517) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

of its several stories is still visible, especially on 
the eastern and southern sides. It is believed by 
most scholars that this temple was the subject of 
Herodotus' celebrated account. Although he 
calls it a Temple of Belus, this is to be explained 
as above. The sanctuary really was consecrated 
to Nebo and bore the name I-bitu, or E-bitu, 
" fortunate " or '' firm house." This temple, 
after having been in a decayed condition for 
ages, was restored by Nebuchadnezzar about the 
middle of the sixth century B.C. About a hun- 
dred years later it was seen and described (as we 
beheve) by Herodotus * in the following words : 

In the middle of the enclosure was a tower of solid 
masonry, a stadium [606 feet] in length and breadth, upon 
which was raised a second tower and on that a third, and 
so on up to the eighth. The ascent to the top is on the 
outside by a path which winds around all the towers. 
When one is about half way up one finds a resting place 
and seats. . . . On the topmost tower there is a spa- 
cious temple and inside the temple a couch of unusual size 
richly adorned, with a golden table by its side. There is 
no statue of any kind set up in the place, nor is the cham- 
ber occupied by anyone but a single native woman, who, 
as the Chaldeans, the priests of this god affirm, is chosen 
for himself by the deity out of all the women of the land.f 

Nebuchadnezzar's own account of the restora- 
tion of his several temples, found in the ziggurat 

* Herodotus' account of Babylon, i. 178-187. See also J. Briill's 
" Herodot's Bab. Nachrichten," Aachen, 1878. 

f The religious origin of these singular structures seems to have 
been somewhat as follows : The Babylonians, like other Semitic 
peoples, conceived of their gods as inhabiting lofty mountains. 
As the low plain of Babylonia contains no mountains, it was 
necessary to build them, since it did not seem possible that the 
gods would descend to men in the plain. These buildings, there- 
fore, may indicate that the Babylonians were originally a moun- 
tain-dwelling people. 

" (5^8) ^ 



Nebuchadnezzar's Inscription 

Birs-Nimrud by Sir Henry Rawlinson, is as fol- 
lows : 



Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, the rightful ruler, 
the expression of the righteous heart of Marduk, the ex- 
alted high priest, the beloved of Nebo, the wise prince, 
who devotes his care to the affairs of the great gods, the 
unwearying ruler, the restorer of Esagila and Ezida, the 
son and heir of Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, am I. 

Marduk, the great god, formed me aright and commis- 
sioned me to perform his restoration; Nebo, guider of the 
universe of heaven and earth, placed in my hand the right 
sceptre; Esagila, the house of heaven and earth, the abode 
of Marduk, lord of the gods, Ekua, the sanctuary of his 
lordship, I adorned gloriously with shining gold. Ezida 
I built anew, and completed its construction with silver, 
gold, precious stones, bronze, musukkani wood and cedar 
wood. Timinanki, the ziggurat of Babylon, I built and 
completed; of bricks glazed with lapis-lazuli (blue) I 
erected its summit. 

At that time the house of the seven divisions of heaven 
and earth, the ziggurat of Borsippa, which a former king 
had built and carried up to the height of forty-two ells, 
but the summit of which he had not erected, was long since 
fallen into decay, and its water conduits had become use- 
less; rain storms and tempests had penetrated its unbaked 
brick-work; the bricks which cased it were bulged out, the 
unbaked bricks of its terraces were converted into rubbish 
heaps. The great lord Marduk moved my heart to rebuild 
it. Its place I changed not and its foundation I altered 
not. In a lucky month, on an auspicious day, I rebuilt the 
unbaked bricks of its terraces and its encasing bricks, 
which were broken away, and I raised up that which was 
fallen down. My inscriptions I put upon the kiliri of its 
buildings. To build it and to erect its summit I set my 
hand. I built it anew as in former times; as in days of yore 
I erected its summit. 

Nebo, rightful son, lordly messenger, majestic friend of 
Marduk, look kindly on my pious works; long life, enjoy- 
• ment of health, a firm throne, a long reign, the overthrow 
of foes, and conquest of the land of the enemy give me as a 
gift. On thy righteous tablet which determines the course 
of heaven and earth, record for me length of days, write for 
me wealth. Before Marduk, lord of heaven and earth, the 
father who bore thee, make pleasant my days, speak favor- 
ably for me. Let this be in thy mouth, " Nebuchadnezzar, 
the restorer-king! " 

' (5^9) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

As we have seen, Birs-Nimrud is one of the 
most considerable ruins in Babylonia, and since 
Nebuchadnezzar is careful to inform us that he 
did not alter its foundations, we may presume it 
was from the beginning a vast and impressive 
structure. How old it may be, who can say? 
Nebuchadnezzar afiirms that it was the work of a 
former king, and his silence as to the name of 
this king points to the fact that the original 
builder had long been forgotten. As to the past 
history of the tower, tradition seems to have wav- 
ered. At the beginning of his inscription Neb- 
uchadnezzar tells us that at the time of the erec- 
tion of the tower, its summit had not been com- 
pleted, but at the end he says, " as in days of yore 
I erected its summit." All this gives the impres- 
sion of great antiquity, and Nebuchadnezzar's 
own description of this weather-worn, decayed 
and abandoned mountain of brick, which evi- 
dently had made a deep impression on his mind, 
seems to mark it out especially as a subject of 
fable and legend. Cheyne, it is true, strongly 
objects to Birs-Nimrud on the ground that it lies 
in Borsippa, not in Babylon proper; but, at all 
events, Borsippa was a suburb of Babylon, and 
we need not suppose that the Hebrews, to whom 
the tale was probably carried by merchants and 
other travellers, would be very exact on such a 
nice question of topography. In any case, it was 
from Babylon, the centre of the Chaldean world, 
that the dispersion took place, for which the 
tower and the confusion of tongues furnish only 
the picturesque motive. In ancient times this 
monument, with its mouldering, bulging, 
weather-stained walls, must have presented an 

(520) 



Appearance of Birs-Nimrud 



appearance weird in the extreme. Perhaps Neb- 
uchadnezzar did not improve it as much as he 
supposed when he dyed its hoary walls all the 
colors of the rainbow.* Time, however, which 
spares nothing, has erased all Nebuchadnezzar's 
bright colors, and its tooth has eaten so deep into 
this venerable structure that no future king will 
restore it. What a pity that such monuments 
should perish! Had nature not withheld from 
this talented people the building stone she lav- 
ished on Egypt, we might still possess those in- 
comparable buildings, not much smaller f ^nd 
even more interesting than the pyramids. Now 
that man has become free, works tha-t require so 
prodigal a sacrifice of human life will never again 
be executed. 

* This temple of the Seven Lights was dedicated, as its name 
implies, to the seven Planetary deities. Each of its stories was 
associated with a heavenly body, and bore its own color, thus : 

1. Saturn =i Adar black. 

2. Venus = Ishtar white. 

3. Jupiter = Merodach orange. 

4. Mercury = Nebo blue. 

5. Mars = Nergal scarlet. 

6. Moon silver. 

7. Sun gold. 

f It is frequently stated that the great Babylonian ziggurats 
were even vaster than the Egyptian pyramids. This, however, 
does not seem to have been the case. The perimeter of Babil, 
which is the largest, including the accumulation of debris, is about 
740 metres, which is less than that of the pyramid of Cheops. 



(521) 



<1 


\ 


^^ 






BabylonJ 






^ 



,@. 



e 



A Babylonian Flood Map. 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

curved stream also leads from the Euphrates into 
" The Bitter Stream." The name is perhaps in- 
complete; it seems to be the concluding syllables 
of the Babylonian for " exit " or '' outlet." 

4. The seven points which extend like the 
points of a star are marked " Districts." The 
Babylonians divided the world into seven zones 
(Jensen, " Kosmologie," p. 174 fT.), a division 
which is copied in some late apocryphal writings 
(cf. Ethiopic Enoch, Ixxiii. 5-8; 2 (4) Esdras, vi. 
50, 52). There are seven places marked on the 
map, one for each zone or district. Each point 
corresponds to one of these places. 

5. The " Mountain " marked at the north of 
the map represents the mountains at the boun- 
dary of the world, those marked K in the last 
chart of Jensen's " Kosmologie " (or possibly 
those marked g, h). The district on the far side 
of these is, of course, the region where the sun is 
at night, hence " the region where the sun is not 
seen." It is said to be six Kasbu between 
this and the next region. The Kasbu was a 
space of two hours. An astronomical tablet from 
the palace of Assurbanipal tells us that at the time 
of the equinox '' six Kasbu was the day and six 
Kasbu the night." The time when the sun is not 
seen is therefore six Kasbu long. As in Europe 
an hour is used as a measure of distance (mean- 
ing the space one can travel in an hour), so in 
Assyrian a similar use was made of Kasbu. Peiser 
translates it " Doppelstunde." In most of the 
tablet it probably means the distance a man 
would travel in two hours, but " where the sun is 
not seen " is probably its primary meaning. 

6. Habbu is, perhaps, as Peiser suggests (Z.A., 



Appendix I 



vol. iv., p. 367), to be identified with Habban 
(spelled also Halman, Halba, and Helba, see W. 
Max Miiller's '' Asien und Europa nach altagyp- 
tischen Denkmalern," pp. 256, 257, and map), 
which was situated in northern Syria near (ac- 
cording to the Babylonian point of view) to the 
Mediterranean Sea. 

7. Bit-Yakin was the birthplace of Merodach- 
baladan, and is frequently alluded to in the in- 
scriptions. It was situated in the region of " The 
Bitter Stream " (cf. Delitzsch, op. cit. p. 203). 

8. The place south of the Canal of Reeds is 
marked in Peiser's copy with a sign which may 
be read '' Bi " or " Gasg "; in Haupt's, it looks 
more like '' Nap." It lacks the determinative 
for either city or country. The sign seems to 
have been obscured in the original. The name 
cannot now be made out. It seems to have been 
a place in the general region of Erdu, one of the 
oldest of the Babylonian cities. 

9. The first place marked to the right of the 
" Outlet " is given in the tablet a name, a part of 
which is broken away. What remains looks like 
the beginning and end of the ideogram for Kutu 
or Kutha, the name of an important centre of 
civilization in early times in Babylonia (cf. De- 
litzsch, op. cit. p. 217). It lay to the east of 
Babylon. 

10. A little above Kutha, '' The country As- 
syria " is plainly marked on the map. 

11. Peiser's text places the name " Urash " 
just above Assyria, but he tells us the reading is 
uncertain. I suspect that the sign he has read 
*' ash " is a crowded writing of the Babylonian 
" ar-tu," which would give us U-ra-ar-tu for 



(525) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

Ur-ar-tu, the name of Armenia. This would 
complete the circuit from the mountains of the 
world-boundary and the far northwest at their 
junction with the Mediterranean (regarded by 
the Babylonians as a continuation of the Persian 
Gulf or " Bitter Stream ") around the Babylonian 
world by the south to the limits of their world, 
on the northeast, where the boundary mountairT 
was supposed to be. 

George A. Barton. 



(526) 



Appendix II 



Appendix II. 

(From Schwarz's " Sintfluth und Volkerwanderungen.") 

Table of Traditions Relating to the Flood, 



Original 
Inhabi- 
tants of 
Greece. 



Greeks. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



European 
Race. 



West 
Asiatic 
Race, 
Indo- 
Germanic 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION 



Greece. 



Greece. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



Istros counted four 
great world catas- 
trophes. One of 
these opened the 
straits of the Bos- 
phorus and Helles- 
pont, causing the 
waters of the Black 
Sea to burst into the 
^gean, to overflow 
the islands and 
neighboring sea- 
coasts, and finally 
to break through 
the Pillars of Her- 
cules into the ocean. 

I. Flood of Ogyges. 
In the reign of 

King Ogyges of At- 
tica, there sprang 
from Lake Copais a 
flood which reached 
up to heaven and 
destroyed most of 
the people. Ogyges 
escaped in a ship 
with some compan- 
ions. 

II. Flood of Deu- 
calion. 

When Zeus de- 
stroyed the whole 
sinful race of the 
bronze age by a 
great flood, Deuca- 
lion of Thessaly,son 
of Prometheus and 
progenitor of the 



Strabo : 
Eustath. ad 
Dionys. 
Perieg. 



Akusilaos 

Pausanias: 
ix. 5. 



Apollodorus 

I. 

Pindar: 

Olymp. IX. 
Ovid: 

Metam. I. 
Strabo IX. 
Apollon. 
Rhod. III. 
Pausanias I. 



(527) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



RACE AMD 
STOCK, 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION, 



Loeris. 
Argos. 

Sicily. 
Delphi. 



Megara. 



Thessaly. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



Hellenes, escaped 
with his wife 
Pyrrha in a boat 
which he had built 
for himself by his 
father's advice, and 
landed, after nine 
days, on Parnassus. 
In memory of the 
flood of Deucalion 
and of those who 
perished in it, every 
year, on the 13th 
of the month An- 
thesterion, a me- 
morial festival was 
celebrated at Ath- 
ens with libations 
of water. 

According to 
Hellanicos, Deuca- 
lion landed upon 
Othrys. 

The Locriansheld 
Opontus or Cynos 
to be the landing- 
place of Deucalion. 

In Argos also was 
shown the place 
where Deucalion 
had left his ship and 
had erected an altar 
to Zeus Aphesios. 

The people of 
Sicily said that Deu- 
calion took refuge 
on .^tna. 

According to the 
Delphians tradi- 
tion, their ances- 
tors, in fleeing be- 
fore the deluge, 
followec^ a number 
of wolves, and so 
reached a cave on 
top of Parnassus, 
where they re- 
mained in safety. 

Megaros, son of 
Zeus, according to 
the tradition of the 
people of Megara, 
found safety on 
Mount Geranion. 

The Thessalian 
Cerambos escaped 
by rising into the 
air on wings given 
him by the nymphs. 



SOURCES. 



Ap. schol. ad 
Pindar: 
Olymp. IX. 

Pindar: 

Oly77ip. IX. 
Strabo IX. 

Etym. Magn. 



NiGiD. : 
Ap. schol. ad 
Genn. Caes., 
A rat. 

Pausanias X. 



Pausanias I. 



Ovid : 
Metam. VII. 



(528) 



Appendix II 



Scandi- 
navians. 



Cymri. 



34 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Germans, 

Goths. 



West 
Asiatic, 

Indo- 
Germanic. 
Germans, 

Celts. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION 



Dodona. 



Cos. 



Rhodes. 



Crete. 



Samothrace. 



Arcadia. 



Scandinavia. 



England. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



Perirrhoos, son 
of .iEolus, was res- 
cued from the 
deluge by Zeus in 
Dodona. 

The inhabitants 
of Cos told how 
Merops escaped 
from the flood with 
a number of people 
and, with them, 
founded a state on 
Cos. 

In the tradition of 
the people of 
Rhodes only the 
Telchines escaped 
from the deluge. 

According to 
Cretan traditions, 
lasion of Crete 
escaped. 

In the tradition 
of the Samothra- 
cians, Saon, son of 
Zeus or of Hermes, 
was saved from the 
deluge. 

Dardanos took 
refuge in Samo- 
thrace from the 
flood in Arcadia. 

According to the 
younger Ed d a, 
Odin, Will and We, 
the sons of the god 
Bor, killed the giant 
Ymir. From the 
wounds of the dead 
giant flowed so 
much blood that the 
whole race of giants 
was drowned, ex- 
cept Bergelmir 
alone, who, with his 
wife, escaped in a 
boat and thus be- 
came the founder 
of a new race of 
giants. 

When the lake of 
L 1 i o n overflowed 
and deluged the 
whole land, all men 
were drowned but 
two, Dwyfan and 



Bekker : 
A necdot. 
Graec. I. 



Schol. ad. Il- 
iad., A . 



DiOD. Sic. 



Schol. ad 
Odyss. E. 



DioD. Sic. 



DiONVS, 

Halic. and 
DiOD. Sic. 



Edda: 
Vafthrud- 
nistnal. 



Edwin 

Davies: 

Brit. Mythol. 

Grimm : 

Deutsche 

Mythologie. 



(529) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Lithua- 
nians 



Gypsy. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Wends. 

Lettes. 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Hindus. 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION, 



Lithuania. 



Hungary. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



Dwyfach, who es- 
caped in a boat into 
which they had 
taken a pair of every 
kind of creature. 

When the highest 
god, Pramzimas, 
looked down upon 
the world from a 
window of his heav- 
enly house and saw 
nothing but war 
and injustice 
among men, he sent 
to earth two giants, 
Wandu and Wejas 
(water and wind), 
who, for twenty 
days and nights, 
desolated every- 
thing. When Pram- 
zimas looked down 
again as he was eat- 
ing heavenly nuts, 
he let fall a shell. 
It dropped on the 
top of the highest 
mountain, upon 
which several pairs 
of human beings 
and animals had 
taken refuge. They 
all climbed into the 
nutshell, which now 
floated about on the 
fiood that covered 
all things. Here- 
upon God caused 
the storm to abate 
and the waters to 
subside once more. 
The people whohad 
been saved immedi- 
ately separated, and 
only one pair, the 
progenitors of the 
Lithuanians, re- 
mained behind in 
that region. 

An old man who 
had been given a 
night's lodging 
with a family, left 
to his hosts a little 
fish, charging them 



SOURCES, 



Narbutta : 
Dzieje 
starozytne 
narodtc litew- 

skiego. 

Grimm : 

Deutsche 

Mythologie. 

Hanusch : 

Slavischer 

My thus. 



Wlislocki : 

Vo7it Wan' 

dernden 

Zigeuner- 

volke. 



(530) 



Appendix II 



PEOPLE. 



Woguls. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 
Asiatic, 
Mongols, 
Northern 
Division, 
Western 
Branch. 

Finns, 
Ugrians. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION 



Ural Moun- 
tains. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



to take good care of 
it until his return. 
Notwithstanding 
this injunction, the 
wife, being eager 
for a dainty dish, 
cooked the fish 
against her hus- 
band's will, when 
suddenly there 
came rain and a 
great flood, and the 
disobedient woman 
was killed by light- 
ning. On the ninth 
day the old man 
again appeared be- 
fore his host and 
advised him to take 
another wife, and 
with her and his 
kindred to escape 
in a boat, at the 
same time taking 
with him animals 
and the seeds of 
trees and plants. 
The rain lasted for 
a year and nothing 
could be seen but 
water and sky; only 
at the end of a year 
did the waters sub- 
side. 

In consequence of 
continuous rain af- 
ter a seven years' 
drought, a general 
deluge occurred. In 
this all the giants 
perished except 
those few who had 
made themselves 
boats out of cloven 
poplars and fas- 
tened them to the 
earth by means of 
500 braces of long 
rope made out of 
willow roots. On 
the seventh day the 
water began to sub- 
side, and those who 
had survived could 
again set foot upon 
the earth. 



SOURCES. 



Lenormant: 

Origines de 

rhistoire 

d'aprcs la 

Bible. 



(530 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



PEOPLE. 



Kalmuks. 



Babylo- 
nians. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



East 
Asiatic, 
Northern 
Division, 
Middle 
Branch. 
Mongols. 

West 
Asiatic, 

Aramaeans, 
Semites. 

Northern 
Family, 

Mesopota- 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION, 



Europe and 
Central Asia, 



Babylonia. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



The traditions of 
the Kalmuks record 
a general deluge. 



I. Chaldean ac- 
count : 

Sit-napistim of 
Surippak,on the Eu- 
phrates, by the ad- 
vice of the god Ea, 
built a ship in which 
he secured "seeds 
of life of every 
kind," as also his 
family, his servants, 
his friends, and the 
necessary provi- 
sions. The deluge 
followed amid tem- 
pest, thunderstorm 
and earthquake ; it 
reached up to hea- 
ven, but on the sev- 
enth day subsided. 
The ship came to 
land" upon a moun- 
tain in the country 
of Nisir (in the 
northeastern part 
of Babylonia), and 
Sit-napistim left the 
ship after he had 
convinced himself 
by thrice sending 
out birds (dove, 
swallow and raven) 
that the flood was 
abating. 

II. Account of 
Berosus (about 260 
B.C.) The Baby- 
lonian king Xisu- 
thros, at the com- 
mand of Kronos, 
built a ship and en- 
tered it with wife, 
children and 
friends, as well as 
birds and four- 
footed beasts. On 
the 15th of the 
month Daesius, the 
flood began, but 
soon subsided. Of 



SOURCES. 



Malte-Brun 

Precis de 

geogr. 



Cuneiform 
tablets of the 
7th cent. B. C. 
collected by 
Haupt: copies 
of older tab- 
lets restored 
about 2000 B. 
C. 



Alexander 
polyhistor, 
and Abvde- 

NUS. 



(532) 



Appendix II 



PEOPLE 



Israelites. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



West 
Asiatic, 
Aramaeans, 
Semites. 
Northern 
Family, 
Hebrews. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



Palestine. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



this Xisuthros re- 
ceived intellig-ence 
by repeatedly send- 
ing- out birds. The 
ship remained 
standing- upon the 
Cordyaean moun- 
tain range in Ar- 
menia, and its re- 
mains could be seen 
as late as the time 
of Berosus. Those 
who had been saved 
with Xisuthros af- 
ter this went back to 
Babylon, while Xis- 
uthros himself,with 
his wife, daughter, 
and pilot, were 
taken to heaven. 

Also traditions 
preserved in frag- 
ments, discovered 
byScheiland Peiser. 

At Jehovah's 
bidding Noah built 
an ark which he 
entered with his 
whole family, and 
with specimens of 
all birds, reptiles 
andfour-footed 
beasts, after sup- 
plying it with pro- 
visions for all its in- 
mates. After Noah 
had entered the ark 
it rained forty days 
and nights without 
ceasing-, so that at 
last the highest 
mountains were 
covered by the wa- 
ter and all living 
creatures perished, 
except those saved 
in the ark. When 
the ark had come 
to a standstill on 
Mt. Ararat, and 
Noah had been con- 
vinced of the ebb- 
ing of the flood by 
repeatedly sending 
out birds, he went 
out of the ark with 
all those belonging 



SOURCES. 



ScHEiL and 
Peiser. 



The Bible, 
Genesis,' an 
imitation of 
the Chaldean 

account. 



(533) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Iranians. 



Persians. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 



West 
Asiatic, 

Indo- 
Germanic. 
Iranians. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



Turkestan. 



Persia. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



to him, and with all 
the rescued ani- 
mals. 

In the ancient 
sacred books of 
the Iranians, which 
form the founda- 
tion of Zoroaster's 
teaching, it is told 
how the good god 
Ahuramazda proph- 
esied to Yima, 
founder of the hu- 
man race, that the 
earth would be laid 
waste by a series 
of terrible winters. 
Yima, therefore, at 
Ahuramazda's com- 
mand, made him- 
self a square garden 
surrounded by a 
wall, and in it found 
place for the seeds 
of human beings, 
animals and plants, 
that he might save 
them from destruc- 
tion. 

In the seventh 
chapter of the Bun- 
dehesh, one of the 
sacred books of the 
Persians, it is re- 
counted that in the 
earliest times of the 
world, during the 
war with Ahriman, 
Tistar, genius of the 
star Sirius, at Ahur- 
amazda's bidding, 
appeared three 
times in the world, 
first in the form of 
a man, then in that 
of a horse, finally in 
that of a bull ; and 
each time there was 
a ten days' rain, 
that the harmful 
creatures formed 
by the evil principle 
might be blotted 
out. When at last 
these waters were 
driven apart to the 



Vendidad II. 



Bundehesh, 
Cap. VII. 
Part of the 
sacred litera- 
ture of the 
Persians. 



(534) 



Appendix II 



Modern 
Persians. 



Hindus. 



Tadjiks 

or 
Tajiks. 



Bokhari. 



Afghans. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Iranians, 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Iranians. 



West 
Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Iranians. 



West 

Asiatic, 

Indo- 

Germanic. 

Iranians. 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION, 



Persia. 



East India. 



Turkestan. 



Bokhara. 



Afghanistan. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



ends of the world 
by a great wind, 
there arose from 
them 4 great and 23 
little seas. 

The modern Per- 
sians believe that 
Noah went out of 
the Ark upon Mount 
Elvend, near Ram- 
adan, the old Ekba- 
tana. 

Tales of a deluge 
are found in the 
prose writings of the 
Brahman period, in 
theSatapatha Brah- 
mana, in the later 
epic poems and in 
the still later Pura- 
nas. Three of the 
incarnations of 
Vishnu are con- 
nected with a del- 
uge. In all three 
cases Vishnu saves 
the human race 
from destruction by 
water by taking 
first the form of a 
fish, then of a turtle, 
and lastly of a boar. 

Mount Kasykurt, 
in the range of 
Karatau, is consid- 
ered a sacred moun- 
tain by the present 
inhabitants of Turk- 
estan because on it 
the ship of their pro- 
genitor came to land 
after the great flood. 

The people of 
Bokhara make their 
Noah land in the 
mountains of Nura- 
tau, northeast of 
Bokhara. 

Mount Nargil, 
near Dschelalabad, 
plays the same part 
among the Af- 
ghans. 



SOURCES. 



RiTTER : 

Erdkunde 
Asians^ VI. 



Veda {Sata- 

patha 

Brdkmana^ 

Mahd- 

bhdrata, 

Bhdgavata- 

Purdna and 

Matsya- 

Purdna). 



Popular 
iegetid. 



Meyendorff: 
Voyage d''Or- 
enbourg a 
Boukhara. 



BURNES : 

Travels into 
Bokhara. I. 



(535) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



d 


PEOPLE. 


RACE AND 
STOCK. 


GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 


SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 


SOURCES. 


i8 


Kash- 


West 


Kashmir. 


Kashmir was 


V. Hugel: 




mirs. 


Asiatic, 




once entirely 


Kaschmir. 






Indo- 




covered with water. 


II. 






Germanic. 




Vishnu gave an out- 








Hindus. 




let to the water by 
opening th^ moun- 
tains near Bara- 
muUa, whereupon 
Kasyapa, a grand- 
son of Brahma, 
populated the land 
left dry. 




19 


Thibe- 


East 


Thibet. 


Thibet was once 


Turner: An 




tans. 


Asiatic, 




wholly inun- 


Atnbassador 






Mongols, 




dated. The god 


at the Court 






Southern 




Gya, out of pity for 


of the Llama 






Division. 




the inhabitants of 
Thibet, then few in 
number, allowed the 
waters to flow off 
toward Bengal. 


of Teschoo. 


20 


Chinese. 


East 


^ China. 


The Chinese cal- 


Yi-King, al- 






Asiatic, 




endars state that in 


leged to have 






Mongols, 




the year 2297 b.c, 


been written 






Southern 




under the Emperor 


4;/ Confucius. 






Division. 




Yao, a fearful del- 
uge devastated the 
land, and that mul- 
titudes of people 
were drowned. The 
waters rose as high 
as the mountains. 




21 


Leptshas. 


East 


Dardschiling 


During a flood a 


Hooker's 






Asiatic, 


in the Hima- 


pair of human be- 


Himalayan 






Mongols, 


layas. 


ings took refuge on 


fourn. 






Southern 




the top of Mount 








Division. 




Tendong. 








Thibetans. 








22 


Karens. 


East 


Burmah. 


Ages ago the 


Mason: Re- 






Asiatic, 




earth was inun- 


port on Ko' 






Mongols, 




dated by a flood 


Thah-Byu. 






Southern 




which finally 








Division. 




reached to heaven. 








Burmans. 




Two brothers es- 
caped on a raft. 




23 


Changrai. 


East 


Kamboja. 


The flood tradi- 


Bastian in 






Asiatic, 




tion of the Changrai 


Zeitschrift 






Mongols, 




is similar to that of 


far Erd- 






Southern 




the Bible. 


kunde at Ber- 






Division. 






lin, 1866. 






Isolated 












Branches, 












Moi. 












(536) 



Appendix II 



25 



26 



PEOPLE. 



Banar. 



Binnas. 



Kam- 
chadales. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 

Asiatic, 

Mong-ols, 

Southern 

Division. 

Isolated 

Branches, 

Moi. 



East 
Asiatic, 

True 
Malays. 
Malays, 
(/. e. S.) 



East 

Asiatic, 

Siberiacs. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION 



Kamboja. 



Malayan 
Peninsula. 



Kam- 
chatka. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



During a great 
flood the father of 
the human race was 
saved by shutting 
himself into 
water-tight chest, 



In the opinion of 
the Binnas theearth 
is liquid within and 
has only a thin cov- 
ering on the out- 
side. In ancient 
time God broke 
this crust in 
pieces so that the 
earth was flooded 
with water and 
destroyed. Later 
God caused Mount 
Lulumut and 
other mountains 
to rise. When 
Mount Lulumut 
had risen out of 
the water there ap- 
peared upon the 
waves a Prahu (or 
flat boat), entirely 
closed, in which 
God had placed a 
pair of human be- 
ings created by him- 
self. From this pair 
mankind is de- 
scended. 

Not long after 
Kutka, the Creator, 
had departed from 
the Kamchadales,a 
great inundation of 
the whole country 
occurred and the 
people were 
drowned, except a 
few who bound 
trees together and 
thus made rafts on 
which they es- 
caped. When the 
flood abated these 
rafts were left 
standing on high 
mountains. 



SOURCES. 



Bastian, ibid. 



Cameron: 
Our Tropical 
Possessions in 
Malayan 
India. 



Steller's 
Description of 
Kamchatka. 



(537) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



28 



Mundas. 



Eskimos. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



Dravidians 



East 

Asiatic, 

Siberiacs. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



East India. 



The northern 
part of N. 
America. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



Singbonga, the 
highest being, sent 
a great flood to de- 
stroy the corrupt 
people ; only one 
brother and one 
sister were saved, 
having hidden 
themselves under a 
Tiril tree. 

There are flood 
traditions among 
all the Eskimos, on 
the mainland as 
well as on the is- 
lands. Petitot was 
told by the Tschli- 
gites on the lower 
Mackenzie, that the 
waters once poured 
over the globe, so 
that the Rocky 
Mountains were 
flooded, and the 
earth and the world 
disappeared. Only 
when a man called 
Son of the Owl 
threw his bow and 
his earrings into the 
water did the flood 
cease. Franz Boas 
heard the following 
account from the 
North American 
Central Eskimos: A 
long time ago the 
sea suddenly began 
to rise until the 
whole land was cov- 
ered. The water 
rose to the tops of 
the mountains and 
the ice floated away 
over them. When 
the waters disap- 
peared the ice re- 
mained lying upon 
the mountains and 
'01 red their sum- 

i. j. A great num- 
ber of Eskimos per- 
ished at this time, 
but many others 
were saved, having 
at the beginning of 
the flood taken 



SOURCES. 



NOTTROTT : 

Die Gossne- 
rische Mis- 
sion unterden 
Kolhsy Halle, 
1874. 



Hall : Life 
among the 
Eskimos. 
Franz Boas : 
The Central 
Eskimo. 
Petitot: 
Vocabul. 
frangais-es- 
quimau^ Con- 
gres inte7-n. 
des Ameri- 
can.., Nancy, 
1875. 



(538) 



Appendix II 



29 



PEOPLE 



Aig^on- 
qums. 



Chippe- 

was, 
Dog-ribs 
and Slave 

Indians 



Hare 
Indians. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Athapas- 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Athapas- 

cas. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION 



North 
America. 



North 
America. 



North 
America. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



refuge in their 
kajaks. 

Among all the 
branches of the Al- 
gonquins the de 
struction of the 
world by a deluge 
is ascribed to an 
evil spirit who is 
symbolized by a ser 
pent. He stands in 
opposition to Mena- 
boshu, a power 
ful demigod, the 
grandfather of 
men and created 
beings. 

In the beginning 
of time there was a 
great fall of snow. 
Then a mouse 
gnawed through a 
leather skin con- 
taining the heat, 
which now spread 
over the earth. In 
an instant the whole 
mass of snow melt- 
ed, so that the high- 
est tir trees were 
submerged and the 
water finally cov- 
ered thesum- 
mits of the Rocky 
Mountains. One 
person only, an old 
man, had foreseen 
the deluge and had 
built a great canoe, 
in which he floated 
about, picking up all 
the animals he met. 

Kunyon, i.e. "the 
wise one," who had 
foreseen the flood, 
built himself a great 
raft and escaped 
with the animals 
that he had gath- 
ered upon it, while 
his friends, whom 
he had warned in 
vain, were drowned , 
for the flood rose 



SOURCES. 



Squier : 
Histor. and 
Mythol. 
Tradit.ofthe 
Algonquins. 



Petitot : as 
above. 



Petitot: as 
above. 



(539) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



33 



PEOPLE. 



Lou- 
cheux. 



Chero- 
kee. 



Crees or 
Kniste- 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Athapas- 



East 
Asiatic, 
American. 
Appala- 
chians. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Algonquin, 

Lenni- 
Lennape. 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION 



North 
America. 



North 
America. 



North 
America. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



over the Rocky 
Mountains. 

Etoetchokren es- 
caped from the 
flood in a canoe 
which floated on the 
waters until they 
evaporated ; the 
canoe ran aground 
on Mount Tschan- 
eguta (Place of the 
Old Man) in the 
Rocky Mountains. 

Once, in conse 
quence of a heavy 
rain, there occurred 
such a deluge that 
every one was 
drowned except a 
single family, who 
by the advice of 
their dog, had built 
themselves a boat. 

At the time of the 
great deluge, which 
occurred many cen- 
turies ago and blot- 
ted out all the peo- 
ples of the earth, 
the tribes of the red 
men assembled on 
the Coteau des 
Prairies, in Minne- 
sota, in order that 
they might escape 
from the water. 
When they had 
come together here 
from every direc 
tion, the water con- 
tinued to rise until it 
finally covered them 
all, whereupon their 
flesh was turned 
into red pipe clay. 
While they were 
drowning a young 
woman, Kwaptahw 
(virgin) by name, 
seized the foot of a 
great bird that flew 
by, and was carried 
to the top of a high 
cliff not far from 
there, which rose 



SOURCES. 



Petitot: as 
above^ 



(540) 



SCHOOLCRAFI 

Notes on the 
Iroquois. 



I 



Catlin: 
Indians of 
North Amer- 
ica : Smith- 
son. Rep. 1885, 






Appendix II 



36 



PEOPLE, 



Tuwanas. 



Lummi 
Indians. 



Tolewa 
Indians. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Algonquin 

Lenni- 
Lennape. 



East 
Asiatic, 

American. 
Algon- 
quins, 
Lenni- 

Lennape. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Califor- 

nians. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION. 



Washiington 
Territory. 



Washington 
Territory. 



California. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



above the water. 
Here she bore twins 
by the warrior 
eagle, and they be 
came the progeni 
tors of the present 
human race. 

During a flood 
caused by heavy 
rain showers which 
inundated all the 
land, the good In- 
dians escaped in 
boats to the highest 
mountains of the 
Olympic Range 
and when the water 
rose even over these 
they bound their 
boats to the high 
trees by means of 
long ropes made of 
cedar bSaa^es, 
order not to be 
swept away. 

Once the whole 
land was inundated 
except a single high 
mountain in the 
Cascade Range, 
upon which an old 
man escaped on a 
raft. This moun- 
tain, lying near 
Steilacoom, is called 
by the Indians "the 
old land." 

During a rain of 
long duration, the 
water rose until all 
the valleys were in- 
undated. The In- 
dians, who at that 
time were very 
numerous, fled to 
the highlands, but 
even here were 
overtaken by the 
water and drowned. 
Only one pair were 
saved, having 
reached the highest 
mountain peak. 
This peak has vari- 
ous names with the 



'^- 



SOURCES. 



Eells : 
Tradit. 0/ the 
Deluge : 
A merican 
A ntiquarian^ 
1878. 



y 






l!0-' 



Eells : as 
above. 



Contributions 

to North 
Amer. Eth- 
nology., 1877. 



(541: 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



PEOPLE. 



Maya 
Nations. 



Asho- 

chemie or 

Wapo 

Indians. 



Zufii. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Califor- 

nians. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Califor- 

nians. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Isolated 

branches of 

Sonora and 

Texas, 

Pueblos. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



California. 



California. 



New Mexico. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



various Californian 
tribes. Among the 
Mattoals it is Tay- 
lor's Peak. 

In the old time 
the Indians lived in 
the valley of the 
Sacramento. Sud- 
denly there arose a 
mighty flood, so 
that the whole val- 
ley became like a 
sea. The Indians 
fled, but were 
drowned neverthe 
less. Only two es 
caped to the moun 
tains. Later the 
Great Man (God) 
opened the side of a 
mountain and the 
waters flowed down 
into the sea. 

A long time ago, 
in a great flood 
which covered the 
whole land, all liv- 
ing creatures were 
drowned with the 
exception of the 
coyote (prairie fox) 
which then repopu 
lated the earth by 
planting in the 
ground the tail- 
feathers of birds, 
which grew into 
human beings. 

The Zunis were 
once driven by a 
great water flood 
out of the valley to 
the rich and beauti- 
ful mesa (slope of 
the tableland) ; the 
flood rose ever 
higher and had al- 
ready reached the 
edge of the mesa, 
when the son and 
the daughter of two 
priests were thrown 
into the waves to 
placate the angry 
element; j 



SOURCES. 



Contributions 
to North 
Ainer. Eth- 
nology^ 1877. 



Contributions 
to North 
Anter. Eth- 
nology., 1877. 



Moses Stev- 

ENSOHN : 
Fifth Annual 
Rep. Bureau 
of Ethnology^ 
Washington^ 
1887. 



(542) ^kP^^^p^.l>A) 



:.v4 ^ 



Appendix II 



PEOPLE. 



Thlin- 
keets. 



Bella- 

Coola 

Indians. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 
Asiatic, 
American. 
North- 
western 
Tribes. 



East 
Asiatic, 
American. 
North- 
western 
Tribes. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



Alaska. 



North 
America, 
along the 

Pacific 
Ocean. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



Jelch the raven, 
the great creator, 
had caught a great 
cuttlefish for his 
uncle, who was 
seeking to kill him. 
The cuttlefish 
swelled until it filled 
the whole house. 
At the same time 
the water rose and 
all men perished. 
Jelch, however, put 
on a bird-skin, and 
gave another to his 
mother, then both 
rose into the air. 
Jelch flew so high 
that he touched the 
heaven with his 
beak and stayed 
hanging there for 
ten days. The 
flood rose so high 
that it came up to 
his feet. When the 
water subsided he 
came down again 
to earth. 

According to 
another legend of 
the Thlinkeets men 
escaped in a great 
floating building, 
which, when the 
water went down, 
was dashed to 
pieces on one of the 
rocks lying below 
the surface. It 
thus caused the dis- 
persion of men and 
the various lan- 
guages. 

Masmasalanich, 
the mightiest god 
of the Bella-Coolas, 
had bound the earth 
to the sun by a long 
rope, which kept 
each at a suitable 
distance from the 
other and prevented 
the earth from sink- 
ng in the ocean. 
Once he stretched 
the rope, in conse- 



Krause : Die 
Thlinkit- 
IndianeVy 
Jena, 1885. 
Holmberg: 
Ethnogr. 
Skizzen, Hel- 
sing/ors^i^SS- 



SOURCES. 



r. 



(^' 



<■ ti 






v^ ''\. v*^ ^j., ^ 

'>'l>^^^<^> 



Boas: Origi- * .fikyv^" 
nal Mitthei- ^^ ^ 

lungen, from . "^ 

the Ethn. De- \p^ . ^ 

parttnent of i"" sJ • 

the Royal )r 

Museums in 
Berlin, 1886. 






(543) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Mexi- 
cans. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION. 



Mexico. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



quence of which the 
earth sank so deep 
that the waters cov- 
ered all the land up 
to the mountain 
tops. Many men 
who had fled to 
their boats were de- 
stroyed ; others 
were driven far 
away. When Mas- 
masalanich short- 
ened the rope once 
more the earth rose 
again out of the 
waves and men 
once more spread 
over it. The differ- 
ent tribes had now, 
however, new 
abodes and many 
languages. 

r- 
The most detailed 
Flood traditions of 
America are found 
among the different 
civilized peoples of 
Mexico, among 
whom in every case 
Noah appears, be- 
ing saved from a 
great flood. Aztecs, 
Tlascaltecs, Zapo- 
tecs, Mixtecs, have 
their Coxcox, Teo- 
cipactli, Tezpi, 
Nata, who, with 
their wives, escaped 
from the flood in 
boats and continued 
the human race. 
The most common 
of the Mexican 
Flood traditions is 
the following : In 
the Atonatiuh, i.e., 
Age of Water, a 
great flood covered 
the whole earth and 
all men were trans- 
formed into fishes. 
Only one man and 
one woman es- 
caped by taking 
refuge in the hollow 
trunk of a cypress. 
The man was 



."^'^ 



•^.> 






Herbert 
Howe Ban- 
croft: 

Native Races 
of the Pacific 
States, III. 
Humboldt: 
Vue des Cor- 
dilleres, II. 
Clavigero : 
Storia A ntica 
del Messico, 
III. 

Mac-Cul- 
LOCH : Philos. 
and A nti- 
quarian Re- 
searches. 






y 



(544) 



Appendix II 



PEOPLE. 



Quiche 



Peru- 
vians. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Mayas. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Andes 

Tribes. 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION, 



Guatemala. 



Peru. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



named Coxcox, his 
wife Xochiquetzal. 
When the water re- 
ceded they landed 
on the peak of Col- 
huacan. 

The gods at first 
created men out of 
clay, but as these 
were very imper- 
fect, the gods de- 
stroyed their work 
by a flood and crea- 
ted new human be- 
ings, the man of 
wood and the wo- 
man of resin. Since 
these also were not 
perfect enough the 
gods again de- 
stroyed them by an 
earthquake and by 
burning resin which 
rained from heav- 
en; only a few es- 
caped, who were 
transformed into 
pigmy-apes. Fin- 
ally the gods formed 
men out of white 
and yellow maize, 
and from these the 
Quiches are de- 
scended. 

The Peruvians 
had various flood 
traditions, among 
them the following : 
A shepherd had 
learned from his 
llamas, through 
their knowledge of 
the stars, that the 
world was to be de- 
stroyed by a flood. 
He fled, therefore, 
with his family 
and his flock to 
Mount Ancasmarca, 
whither many other 
animals had already 
taken flight. Hardly 
had the shepherd 
arrived here when 
the sea left its shore 
and destroyed all 



SOURCES. 



Popol Vuk, le 
livre sacre et 
les mythes des 
Quiches^ edid. 
Brasseur de 

Bourbourg; 

Paris. 1861. 



Bancroft : 
Native Races 
of the Pacific 
States, V. 



35 



(545) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



46 



PEOPLE. 



Arauca- 
nians. 



Caribs. 



RACE AND 
STOCK 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Arowak- 

Carib 

Tribes. 



GEOGRAPH 
SITUATION 



Chili. 



Haiti. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



living creatures, 
The mountain was 
lifted up by the 
waves and floated 
like a ship. On the 
fifth day the waters 
began to subside 
again. 

After a severe 
earthquake, accom- 
panied by volcanic 
eruptions, there 
came a great water 
flood from which 
only a few men es- 
caped. These found 
safety on a high 
mountain with 
three peaks, which 
floated on the water 
and was called by 
them Thegtheg, 
z'.^.,"the noisy one, ' 
or "the lightener." 
Now, as soon as the 
Araucanians feel 
the approach of a 
violent earthquake, 
they try to find 
safety on a moun- 
tain, in order to pro- 
tect themselves 
from the eventual 
rising of the sea. 
At the same time 
they provide them- 
selves with food and 
with woodendishes, 
that they may cover 
their heads with the 
latter, if perchance 
the mountain on 
which they stand 
should be lifted by 
the flood up to the 
sun. 

Jaia, a cazique on 
the island of Haiti, 
had interred the 
bones of his son, 
whom he killed be- 
cause of a crime, 
in a great gourd 
bottle, according to 
the custom of his 
country ; and in this 



Molina: 
Eroberung 
von Chilly 
Leipzig^ 1791. 



Washington 
Irving's Co- 
lumbus y Book 
VI. 



(546) 



Appendix ll 



PEOPLE. 



Acka- 
wais. 



Arowaks. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Arowak- 

Carib 

Tribes. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



British 
Guiana. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Arowak- 

Carib 

Tribes. 



British 
Guiana. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



gourd-bottle the 
bones had turned 
into fishes. Injaia's 
absence his curious 
brothers looked into 
the pitcher and let 
it fall, so that it was 
broken in pieces, 
Out of the broken 
pitcher there 
poured an endless 
flood, which covered 
the whole earth, so 
that the mountain 
tops alone, the pres- 
ent Antilles, looked 
out above it. 

Makonaima, the 
great invisible 
spirit, had created 
a wonderful lofty 
tree which bore all 
possible kinds of 
fruits, and he had 
given it into the 
care of his wise son 
Sigu. While Sigu 
was felling the tree 
from out the hollow 
trunk, which was 
connected with sub- 
terranean springs, 
there flowed water 
which covered the 
whole earth. Sigu 
fled with his flock to 
the highest point of 
the land until the 
flood subsided. 

The world has 
been twice de- 
stroyed in conse- 
quence of the evil 
deeds of men ; the 
first time by fire, the 
second time by 
water. The wise 
prince Marere- 
wana, to whom the 
coming of the flood 
had been foretold, 
escaped with his 
family in a boat. 
This he had fas- 
tened to a tree trunk 
by a long rope made 



/9 



..v=<'V 



I^J^ 



Th 



Brett : The 
Indian Tribes 
of Guiana, 
London^ 1868. 



4 f*^" 






4^' 



:4^ 



(^ 



Brett, as 
above. 



.-«-- 



(547) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



56 



Maypuri 



Tupi- 
namba. 



Tupi. 



Botoku- 
dos. 



Carayos. 



Mesaya. 



Dayaks. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Arowak- 

Carib 

Tribes. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Tupi 

Tribes. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Tupi 

Tribes. 



East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Isolated 

Tribes. 

East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Isolated 

Tribes. 

East 

Asiatic, 

American. 

Tupi 
Tribes. 

East 
Asiatic, 
Malays. 
Genuine 
Malays. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



Along the 
Orinoco. 



Brazil. 



Brazil. 



Brazil. 



On the 
Araguay. 



On the 

Amazon 

River. 



Borneo. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



of lianas, in order 
that he might not 
be swept out to sea. 

During a great 
flood all men per- 
ished except one 
pair, who escaped 
to Mount Tama- 
naku on the shore 
of the Asiveru. 

During a great 
deluge all the an- 
cestors of the Tupi 
nambas were 
drowned except a 
few, who saved 
themselves in a 
boat and on high 
trees. 

Awiseman,Tam- 
anduare, at the 
counsel of Tupe, the 
Tupis' highest be- 
ing, climbed palm 
trees with his fam- 
ily and there waited 
for the end of the 
flood, in which all 
the rest of the hu- 
man race perished. 

The Botokudos 
also tell of a great 
deluge. 



Among the Cara- 
yos Dr. Ehrenreich 
found a Flood tradi- 
tion. 



Marcoy found a 
Flood tradition 
among the Mesa- 
yas. 



Once when the 
Dayaks had killed 
a great boa-con- 
strictor and cooked 
it,there came heavy 
rain which lasted 



SOURCES. 



Humboldt : 
A nsichten der 
Natur I. 



Hans 

Staden : 

A usgabe von 

Stzittgart^ 

1859. 



SiMAM DH 

Vasconcel- >v 

LOS: Noticios^\''^ a 
curicsas de X^ jg' \J^ 






Prinz Wied : 
Brasilien II. 



Verhandlun- 
gen der Ber- 
liner ^ Anthr. 
Ges., 1888. 



Tour du 
Monde, XV. 



Perham : A 
Sea-Dyak 
tradition of 
the deluge. 



\ 



{548) 



Appendix II 



PEOPLE, 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



GEOGRAPH, 
SITUATION 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



SOURCES. 



Sandwich 
Islanders 



Mar- 
quesas 
Islanders, 



Pelew 

Islanders. 



60 



Society 
Islanders, 



East 
Asiatic, 
Malays. 
Polyne- 
sians. 

East 
Asiatic, 
Malayans. 
Polyne- 
sians. 

East 
Asiatic, 
Malayans. 
Polyne- 
sians, 
Mi krone- 



East 
Asiatic, 
Malayans. 
Polyne- 
sians. 



Sandwich 
Islands. 



Marquesas 
Islands. 



Pelew 

Islands. 



Society 
Islands. 



until all the moun- 
tains except the 
highest ones were 
under water, and 
the whole world 
was drowned. Only 
one woman escaped 
upon a high moun- 
tain, and brought 
forth descendants 
by a flre-drili which 
she had' invented. 

Bastian gives a 
Polynesian song 
which treats of the 
great flood. 



On the Marquesas 
Islands the English 
sailor, Lawson, 
found songs about 
a great flood. 

The gods having 
been ill received on 
a visit to earth, sent 
in punishment a ter- 
rible flood at the 
time of the full 
moon. An old wo- 
man, Milatk by 
name, who had har- 
bored the gods, by 
their advice took 
refuge on a raft, but 
perished likewise. 
The gods, however, 
brought her to life 
again later. 

The sea god Rua- 
hatu sent a flood 
which covered all 
the islands and the 
highest mountain 
tops, and destroyed 
all the islanders ex- 
cept one fisherman. 
This man, at Rua- 
hatu's command, 
had escaped with 
wife, children, and 
one friend, and with 
the few domesti- 
cated animals of the 
island, to the small 



Bastian : 
Die heilige 
Sage des 
Polynesier^ 
Leipzig^ 1881. 

L. Palmer in 
Proc. of the 
Lit. &= Phil. 
Soc. of Liver- 
pool, XXX L 

J. KUBARY in 

Bastian ; 
Semper: Die 
Palau-Inseln. 



W. Ellis: 
Polynesian 
Researches, 
II. 



(549) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 



Fiji 
Islanders. 



New 
Guineans. 



New 
Hebrides 
Islanders. 



Mincopis. 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



Papuas. 
Mixed 
Papuas, 
Melane- 



Papuas. 
Unmixed 
Papuas, 
Genuine 
Papuas. 



Papuas. 

Mixed 
Papuas, 
Melane- 

sians. 
New Cale- 
donians. 

Papuas. 
Unmixed 
Papuas. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION, 



Fiji Islands. 



District of 

Kabadi in 

New Guinea 



New Hebri- 
des Island, 
Aneytum. 



Andamans. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



coral island Toama- 
rama, which was 
spared by the flood. 

The Fiji Islanders 
tellof a flood which, 
according to some, 
was a general one ; 
according- to others, 
however, it em- 
braced only parts of 
the earth. All agree 
in this, that the 
highest mountains 
were covered with 
water, and the peo- 
ple who were left 
alive, eight in all, 
escaped in a boat 
which, after the 
flood subsided, was 
left standing upon 
Mbengga. 

Once the earth 
was flooded so that 
only the tops of the 
highest mountains 
remained uncov- 
ered. Lohero and 
his younger brother 
were angry with 
men and threw a 
human bone into a 
small stream. Soon 
came forth the 
great waters, which 
formed a sea, cov- 
ered all the low 
land and compelled 
men to flee to the 
mountains. There 
they lived until the 
waters subsided. 

On the island of 
Aneytum there is a 
tradition of a gen- 
eral deluge. 



Pulugu, the crea- 
tor, being angry 
with men, sent a 
great flood which 
covered the whole 



SOURCES. 



Th. Wil- 
liams : 
Fiji and the 
Fijians, Lon- 
don, i8s8. 



Chalmers 
AND Gill: 
Work and 
Adiienture in 
Ne7v Guinea, 
Lo?idott, 1885. 



Zeitschr. d. 
Ges. f. Erd. 
kundezu Ber- 
lin, IX. 



Jour. Anthr. 
Institut. XII. 



(550) 



Appendix II 



PEOPLE, 



RACE AND 
STOCK. 



GEOGRAPH. 
SITUATION. 



SUBSTANCE OF 
LEGEND. 



land and destroyed 
all living things. 
Only two men and 
two women es- 
caped, as they hap- 
pened to be in a 
boat, and after the 
waters had abated 
they landed in the 
neighborhood of 
Wotaemi. 



SOURCES. 



(551) 



Appendix III 

Enoch 

Since this book was written, in fact within the 
past few months, Heinrich Zimmern, the well- 
known professor of Semitic languages in the 
University of Leipzig, has published what may 
prove to be an important discovery in regard to 
the Patriarch Enoch.* Before mentioning this 
discovery, let me remind the reader that accord- 
ing to Babylonian tradition ten mythical kings, 
and according to one Hebrew tradition ten patri- 
archs, existed before the Flood. Between these 
two lists, one of which is found in the history of 
Berosus, and the other in the fifth chapter of 
Genesis, a certain general similarity has long 
been recognized. In each list the tenth patri- 
arch or king (Noah or Xisuthros) is the hero of 
the Flood story. Further, the name of the third 
Hebrew patriarch, Enos, means " a man " ; and 
the name of the third Babylonian king, Amelon, 
has the same significance. The fourth patriarch 
in the Bible is called Cainan, or " smith/' and 
the fourth Babylonian king is called Ammenon, 
which is interpreted " workman," or " master- 
workman," etc. 

It is, however, in regard to the seventh patri- 

* " Biblische und Babylonische Urgeschichte," Leipzig-, igoi. 
(553) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

arch, Enoch, that this comparison is most inter- 
esting. Now Enoch has always been a dark and 
puzzling personality to students of the Bible. 
It is true, little is related of him in the Book of 
Genesis, but that little is very strange. We read 
that Enoch was the seventh from Adam, that 
he lived 365 years, that he '' walked with God," 
and then *' was not, for God had taken him." 
Tantalizingly brief as these notices are, they evi- 
dently set before us a great hero, a man distin- 
guished above all the other patriarchs in that, 
like Elijah, he did not taste of death. A fate so 
singular, however, would never have been as- 
cribed to an obscure personage. From this bare 
account of Genesis we may be sure that Enoch 
was a man of renown in antiquity, of whom many 
strange adventures were once related. This im- 
pression is decidedly strengthened by the great 
cloud of myth which gathered around Enoch's 
head in later times, and which at last expressed 
itself in the Apocryphal books which bear his 
name.* In these books Enoch passes as a great 
prophet, a mighty seer to whom God revealed 
the future history of the world. He is repre- 
sented as the inventor of writing, arithmetic, and 
astrology. The credit enjoyed by the Book of 
Enoch is shown by the fact that St. Jude un- 
hesitatingly quotes it as an authentic work of 
prophecy, as does also the author of the Epistles 
ascribed to St. Barnabas. 

Now the difficulty has been that nothing we 
know of the life of Enoch suffices to show why 
he should have been singled out for such dis- 

* " The Book of Enoch," composed in the second and first 
centuries B.C., and " The Secrets of Enoch," i to 50 a.d. 

(554) 



Appendix III 



tinctions. The motive of the statements of 
Genesis, and still more the motive of the vast 
myth of the Book of Enoch, has been altogether 
lacking. His place in history as the seventh from 
Adam, to which St. Jude so pointedly calls atten- 
tion, was doubtless assigned him to single him 
out for peculiar honors. The 365 years of his 
life have frequently been compared with the days 
of the solar year, though up to the present time 
this comparison has thrown no real light on his 
character. His translation to Heaven, which is 
plainly hinted at in the words '' he was not, for 
God had taken him," sets him apart as one of 
the most highly favored of mankind, and the 
fact that this honor was conferred on Enoch 
rather than on Noah, after the example of 
Xisuthros, is still more surprising. We may 
also remark, that as far as the character of 
Enoch is depicted in the Book of Genesis, it is 
depicted as the character of a religious man. 
Enoch's greatness did not consist in worldly ex- 
ploits, or in deeds of arms, or in the discovery 
of human arts, but in his relation to the Most 
High. '' Enoch walked with God." In this re- 
spect he reminds us of the mysterious priest 
Melchizedek. The Book of Enoch confirms this 
impression, and represents him consistently as 
a man of God, a prophet free from mundane 
cares and occupations. We may sum this up by 
saying that the meagre but very striking allusions 
to Enoch in the Book of Genesis mark him out as 
a man of renown, a religious hero, the subject 
of a popular myth, and that this character is well 
sustained in the books which bear his name. 
The origin of this myth Zimmern believes that 



(555) 



Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge 

he has discovered. He remmds us that in Be- 
rosus' catalogue the seventh mythical king of 
Babylonia is called in Greek, Evedoranchos, and 
also in a ritual tablet recently explained by him.* 
Zimmern recognizes the cuneiform equivalent 
of Evedoranchos in the great prophet-priest, 
Enmeduranki. In this tablet Enmeduranki, or 
Evedoranchos (for we may regard this point as 
proved), is hailed as king of Sippara, the city of 
the sun-god, Shamash. Shamash has taken En- 
meduranki into his fellowship, and has instructed 
him in all the secrets of Heaven and earth, and 
especially has bestowed on him power to pro- 
phesy future events from signs in the earth and 
heavens. Enmeduranki is evidently regarded 
as the prototype and progenitor of the prophet- 
priests of Babylonia, whose business was to fore- 
tell the future from dreams and omens, and 
especially from the movements of the heavenly 
bodies. This, it will be remembered, is the role 
assigned to Enoch in the Apocryphal books. 
Even the 365 years of Enoch, which are so far 
below the average term of life of his contem- 
poraries, Zimmern plausibly explains by Enme- 
duranki's intimate association with Shamash, the 
sun-god. 

On examining the text from which Zimmern 
derives his argument, the reader will probably be 
disappointed by the vagueness of its allusions. 
Zimmern's identification of Enoch with the 
seventh Babylonian king, however, is decidedly 

* "Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Bab. Religion," von Dr. H. Zim- 
mern, Leipzig, 1899 ; 2te. Lieferung, Erste Halfte, Nr. 24. 
Zimmern asserts that Enmeduranki was pronounced Evedoranki, 
which would make the resemblance complete. 

(556) 



Appendix III 



strengthened by certain linguistic considerations. 
It may be granted that Enmeduranki and Bero- 
sus' Evedoranchos are the same person. It 
would also appear from the tablet that Enme- 
duranki was regarded as the prototype of the 
Babylonian prophet-priests, and that he was the 
subject of an extensive myth. Now the name of 
the god Ea was, in Sumerian, En-ki (lord of the 
earth). Enmeduranki appears to be an expan- 
sion of this name, signifying, " Thou art lord, 
lord of all the earth." If, however, this old 
mythical priest-king of Sippara bore a name 
which was only an expansion of the Sumerian 
name of Ea — i.e., En-ki — his name might easily 
be contracted again to En-ki. The resemblance 
between En-ki and Enoch (Chanok) is, of course, 
very striking. Enoch is probably a corruption 
of En-ki. The '' E " would naturally be repre- 
sented in Western Semitic by the guttural cheth, 
or ajin, which were sometimes interchanged, so 
that the resemblance is really much more close 
than in the case of many names which in ancient 
times passed from one language to another. I 
am indebted for these suggestions to Dr. George 
A. Barton. 

It is true, neither Berosus nor Zimmern's tab- 
let mentions the translation of Evedoranchos or 
Enmeduranki. That element of the story of 
Enoch appears to have been transferred from the 
myth of Xisuthros. But for the rest, the above 
explanation of the strange personality of Enoch 
is probably the best it has as yet received. 



(557) 



INDEXES 



Index of Authors 



A 

Addis, W. E., 169, 271, 
288, 304, 326, 327. 
Andree, Richard, 417, 
422, 424, 425, 426, 429, 433, 
435, 461, 464. 
Arnold, Matthew, 23, 93. 
Astrus, Jean, 21. 



B 

Bacon, B. W., 35, 352. 
Bancroft, H. H., 432, 437, 

461, 499, 500, 501. 
Barton, Geo. A., 478, 479, 

480. 
Baudissin, W. W., 106, 107, 

108, 211, 215. 
Benzinger, 336, 350, 351, 402. 
Berteau, Ernest, 288. 
Boas, Franz, 425. 
Bochart, Samuel, 282, 344. 
Bohmer, 486. 
Boscawen, W. St. Chad, 201, 

385. 
Bourbourg, Brasseur de, 430, 

435, 436, 437. 
Brinton, Daniel G., 126, 417, 

445, 449. 454, 455, 456, 498, 

501. 
Brugsch Bey, 19, 98, loi, 216. 
Buckley, Edmund, 436. 
Budde, Karl, 239, 267, 288, 304, 

313, 350, 376, 395, 401, 482, 

486. 
Burnouf, Eugene, 368, 370, 506. 
Buttmann, P., 282, 363. 



/Carpenter, D. W., 414. 
^ Cernik, Joseph, 470. 
Cheyne, T. K., 270, 348, 442, 

445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 497, 

498, 520. 
Clavigero, 431. 
Cory, L. P., 215, 226, 281, 300, 

309, 344, 346, 369, 376, 383. 
Creuzer, F., 214. 



Darwin, C, 2. 
Delitzsch, Franz, 257,291, 
304, 312, 498. 

Delitzsch, Fried., 213, 386, 401, 
469. 

Dillmann, A. (T. and T. Clark, 
1897, translation from 4th 
ed.), 86, 150, 175, 223, 270, 
272, 276, 288, 298, 301, 302, 
304, 308, 321, 326, 330, 337, 
351, 385, 401, 406, 489. 

Doane, T. W., 498, 503. 

Duncker, Max, 384, 406. 



■puis, W., 422, 444, 445. 

Encyclopaedia Biblica, 

345, 442, 478, 498, 508. 



Fergusson, James, 211. 
Fiske, John, 498. 
Furtwangler, A., 224. 



36 



(561) 



Index of Authors 



/^erland, Georg, 441, 442, 443, 
^^ 444, 445, 446. 
Gesenius, W., 304, 325. 
Goldziher, 401. 
Grimm, J., 208, 328, 357, 419, 

424, 499. 
Gubernatis, A. de, 211. 
Gunkel, 130, 132, 138, 406, 

H 

T Tahn. Joh. Georg von, 415. 
-tA Halevy, J., 325. 
Hastings (Diet, of Bible), 332, 

344. 
Haupt, Paul, 226, 228, 375, 401, 

523. 
Heine, 236. 
Holtzinger, H., 263, 304, 321, 

327. 
Hommel, F., 475. 
Hopkins, E. W., 368, 370, 

502. 
Hughes, T. P. (Diet, of Islam.), 

315, 316. 
Hultsch, Friedrieh, 336. 
Humboldt, A. von, 430, 431. 



Thering, R. von, 296, 297, 329, 
370, 390, 392, 394, 406, 468, 



509- 



7 



Jastrow, M., 226, 227, 232, 
233, 248, 251, 252, 375, 

377, 382, 386, 387, 388, 389, 

393, 394, 396, 400, 406, 408, 

447, 471, 479- 
Jensen, P., 241, 250, 325, 348, 

375, 387, 388, 392, 393, 394, 

395, 396, 406, 447- 
Jensen, Peter, 337. 
Jeremias, Alfred, 226, 227, 235, 

241, 248, 375, 386, 389, 406. 



K 

Kant, I., 50, 79, 80. 
Kautseh, E., 304, 
Kingsborough, Lord, 430, 432. 
Kohl, Johann Georg, 429, 499. 
Kosters, 385. 
Kuhn, Adalbert, 223. 



T ayard, A. H., 8, 517. 

■L' Lenormant, F., 28, 189, 

210, 222, 264, 272, 282, 292, 

316, 377, 378, 422, 431, 433, 

436, 446. 
Luken, H., 498, 500. 
Livingstone, D,, 424, 498. 
Lubboek, Sir John, 416. 
Lyell, Sir Charles, 341, 472, 

475, 476, 477. 



M^ 



M 

aspero, 187, 216, 387. 

Meyer (Konversations 
Lexieon), 328, 329, 362, 461. 
Movers, F. C, 106, 363. 
Muir, 448. 
Muller, J., 370, 440. 

N 

Nowaek, W., 316, 336, 350, 
351. 

o 

r)ldenberg, H., 370. 
Oppert, J., 516. 



Peiser, F. E., 478, 479. 
Petermann, A., 503, 504. 
Peters, J. P., 512, 517. 
Petitot, Emile, 425. 
Pinehes, T. G., 227, 229. 
Preller, 363. 



(562) 



Index of Authors 



R 

Rassam, 517. 
Ratzel, 417, 420, 



421, 



E., 2, 51, 52, 77, 94, 



422. 
Renan, 

106. 

Reymond, Du Bois E., 79. 
Rialle, Girard de, 432. 
Rich, C. J., 517. 
Roth, Rudolf von, 108, 370. 



Sayce, A. H., 227, 251, 400, 
447. 
Scheil, Fr. V., 346, 400, 407, 

408, 409. 
Scherzer, Karl, 435. 
Schirren, K. C. I., 441. 
Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 429. 
Schrader, E., 270, 345, 395, 447, 

448, 477, 495, 516. 
Schultz, H., 17. 
Schwarz, Franz von, 417, 439. 
Siegfried and Stade, 304. 
Smith, George, 8, 10, no, 197, 

375. 
Smith, W. R., 332. 
Stade, B., 263, 316, 407. 
Stoll, O., 435. 



Suess, Eduard, 468, 469, 470, 

477, 478. 
Symonds, J. A., 191. 



'"pylor, E. B., 384, 416, 422, 
J- 427, 444, 464. 

u 

TTsener, H., 361, 366, 367,450, 
^ 452, 453. 

w 

Txraitz, Theodor, 417, 441, 
VV 442, 443. 
Warner, William F., 151. 
Weber, A., 370, 371. 
Wellhausen, J., 262, 313. 
White, Andrew D., 414, 498. 
Wilson, Horace, 282. 
Winchell, A., 259. 
Windischmann, F. R., 206. 



^immern, H., 251, 375, 386, 
^ 387, 388, 389, 393, 396, 

397, 403, 478, 479, 480. 
Zockler, D. O., 414. 



(563) 



Index 



Abel, 37, 258-278 ; mean- 
ing of name, 268. 
Aben, Ezra, 20, 21. 
Adapa, tablet discovered, 
251 ; problem of everlasting 
life, 252-253 ; comparison 
with Genesis, 253-255; Adapa 
not Adam, 255. 

Algonquin flood myths, 426- 
429. 

Altar, first mention of, 331. 

Aloadse, 501, 502. 

Amos, description of solar 
eclipse, 436-437, 477. 

Angels, fall of, 307 ; called sons 
of God, 304, 307-308 ; in 
Greek food myth, 450, 453. 

Animals, in Eden, 159, 166- 
167 ; in flood, 339, 390 ; in 
Greek flood myth, 453, 470 ; 
animal food permitted, 353- 

354. 

Annunaki, 393, 471. 

Antediluvian patriarchs, 278- 
282, 381-382; classical heroes, 
281, 282 ; age of, 283 ; fate 
of, 288-291 ; meaning of 
names, 297-298 ; age limited, 
3 10-3 1 1 ; table of, 289. 

Appollodorus, on flood, 362, 

365. 
Ararat, 343 ; identified with 
Elburg, mythical sky-moun- 
tain, 345 ; Berosus' tradition 
supports Biblical tradition, 
345, 346 ; not identical with 
Mt. Nisir, 344-346 ; why 



Ararat chosen, 347-348 ; evi- 
dence of Scheil's fragment, 
346 ; evidently mythical 
mountain, 347-349 ; Isaiah on 
mythical mountain, 348 ; vast 
height in Genesis, 348. 

Ark, 325, 334 ; window of, 330, 
337 ; description of, 334-339. 
Deucalion's, 362, 365, 367, 
451, 481, 484; Babylonian, 
350, 378-383, 389, 392, 440, 
469-470 ; course of, 345, 346, 
462. See Deluge. 

Armenia. See Ararat. 

Astruc, discovery of the three 
documents, 21. 

Atlantis, myth of, 364. 

B 

■pabel. Tower of : text of story, 
^ 492-493 ; no reference to 
flood, 493-494 ; no Baby- 
lonian counterpart of, 495- 
496 ; story composite, 497 ; 
myth not widely diffused, 
497, 498, 499 ; Mexican leg- 
end of, 499-501 ; Hindu par- 
allel to, 502-503 ; African 
parallel to, 503-504 ; Greek 
legends, 501-502, 504-505 ; 
confusion of tongues and 
logos, 505-508 ; founding of 
Babylon, 508 ; the first city, 
509 ; temple towers, 512 ; 
mounds associated with Tell- 
Nimrud, Babil, Birs - Nim- 
rud, Amran Ibn. Ali, 515, 
516. 



(565) 



Index 



Babil, description of, 516-517 ; 
age of, 516. 

Birs-Nimrud, description of, 
517-518 ; age of, 520 ; Her- 
odotus on, 518 ; Nebuchad- 
nezzar on, 518-519 ; connec- 
tion with Tower of Babil, 
520. 

Babylon. See Babel. 

Babylonian literature, in Ca- 
naan, 401-407 ; discovery of, 

lO-II. 

Behemoth, 138. 

Bel and Dragon, 213. 

Berosus, 375-385 ; editions of, 
376, note; genealogical table, 
281 ; account of deluge, 376- 
380 ; peculiarities of deluge 
story, 380-383 ; later origin, 
467 ; landing place of ark, 
346-347. 

Birds, in ark, 326-330 ; in crea- 
tion story, 457 ; used by navi- 
gators, 328-330. 

Bitumen, 469. See Babel. 

Blood, significance of, 354. 

Bundahesh, Persian flood tradi- 
tion, 190, 194-195, 371-372 ; 
Mashya and Mashyana, 194- 
196 ; serpent, 217. 



Cain, 37, 38, 258-277 ; story 
mythical, 259-260 ; mark 
of, 261, 264, 276; fratricide 
of, 271-277 ; Wellhausen's 
explanation of, 260-263 \ 
Lenormant's explanation of, 
264-265 ; Budde's explana- 
tion of, 267-268 ; author of 
story, 258; a city builder, 295; 
not son of Adam, 290 ; gene- 
alogy of, 293 ; translation of 
story, 270-277 ; summary of 
argument, 269-270. 
Calendar, Babylonian, 264-265, 
existence of assumed, 339, 
note; Lunar month, 350, 



note ; solar year adopted in 
Canaan, 350, note. 

Canaan, son of Ham, 481 ; son of 
Noah, 483. See also, 486-489. 

Chaos, all creation stories begin 
with, 89, 125, 126, note ; as 
overcome by God, 1 19-140; 
personification of evil, 130- 
142 ; its nature unknown, 
142 ; represented in all myth- 
ologies, 140-141, note. See 
Tiaffiat, 128. 

Cherubim, no example in He- 
brew art, 218 ; in Solomon's 
temple, wooden in brazen sea, 
metal, 218-219 ; animal form 
of, 219 ; winged, 219-220 ; 
in i8th Psalm, 219 ; in Eze- 
kiel, 219-220; two functions 
of, 219-220 ; which older, 
222 ; origin of name, 222 ; 
association with Griffin, 223. 

City, first city built by farmer, 
295-297 ; founding of Babel, 
492. 

Climatic conditions differently 
represented by Jehovist and 
priestly writer, 156-158. 

Colenso, criticism negative, 23; 
trial of, 23. 

Cosmology, Babylonian, 240 ; 
priestly writers, 339. See 
Chap. I. 

Cosmogony. See Creation. 

Covenant, 338, 355. 

Creation, 70 ; a practical ques- 
tion, 71, 77 ; attitude of 
science toward, 75-78 ; order 
of life, 83-84 ; Not e nihilo, 
104, 127, 454. 

Accounts of: Priestly 
Writer, 89-93 ; Jehovist, 140, 
148-155, part lost, 140; 
Egyptian, 96-102 ; Hindu, 
95 ; Greek, 96 ; Babylonian, 
109-124; agreement with 
Genesis, iii, 115, 116-117, 
119, 120, 127, 130; differ- 
ences, 119, 127, 156 ; Persian, 



(566) 



Index 



part of Zoroaster's system, 
102-105 ; Phoenician, 105- 
109 ; Damascius, 120-121 ; 
Berosus, 121-124. 

Critical method, results of, 24. 

Cuneiform inscriptions, 8-9 ; 
Adapa legend, 251-253, Tel- 
el-Amarna tablets, 251, 335, 
402-403 ; creation tablets, 
110-118, 129, 241 ; epic of 
Izdubar, 228-251 ; Peiser's 
fragment, 407, 478-479, also 
appendix ; Scheil's fragment, 
407-410 ; on Sabbath, 143- 

145. 
Cubit, 334 ; borrowed from 

Babylon and Egypt, 335. 
Curse, primal, 162, 175, 177, 

178 ; partly remitted, 332. 

B 

T^ead, condition of, Babylo- 

-'-^ nian conception, 246. 

Death, not caused by fall, 177, 
181. 

Deucalion. See Deluge. 

Deluge, two Hebrew accounts, 
317-318 ; accounts inter- 
woven, 317-318 ; inconsis- 
tencies between Hebrew ver- 
sions, 318-322 ; no universal 
deluge, 412, 415 ; wide dif- 
fusion of tradition, 412, 415 ; 
fossils, 413, 414-415. 

Jehovist's account of, 324- 
333; naif conceptions in, 325, 
327, 332; mention of ark, 325 ; 
vegetation not destroyed, 327; 
duration of flood, 329, 358- 
359 ; employment of birds, 
327-330 ; building of ark 
omitted, 325 ; exit omitted, 
330 ; altar mentioned, 330- 

331 ; Noah's sacrifice, 330- 

332 ; Jahveh's promise to 
Noah, 332-333. 

Priestly Writer's account 
of, 333-357 ; cause of deluge 



stated, 334 ; description of 
ark, 334-338 ; mentions cov- 
enant, 338 ; mention of ani- 
mals, 339-340 ; physical 
causes of deluge, 339-340 ; 
universal, 340-341 ; vegetation 
uninjured, 341 ; height of Ar- 
arat, 341, 349 ; Ararat, site 
of, 343-349 ; duration of 
flood, 349-352, 359-360 ; in- 
terest in animals, 352 ; cov- 
enant sign of rainbow, 355- 
356; completeness of ac- 
count, 357 ; less original, 357- 
360. 

Diffusion of flood tradi- 
tions, in antiquity ; found 
among Babylonians, Hindus, 
Hebrews and Greeks, 361 ; 
Persian doubtful, 361 ; Phoe- 
nician lost, 361. 

Traditions : Greek, 361- 
367 ; Hindu, 368-371 ; Per- 
sian, 371-373 ; Egyptian, 
no tradition, 373 ; Arab, 
no tradition, 373 ; Babylo- 
nian, from two sources, Bero- 
sus and cuneiform inscrip- 
tions, 375; discovery of cunei- 
form account, 375 ; text of, 
375; translations of, 375-376 ; 
compared with Hebrew, 397- 
407 ; other Babylonian flood 
traditions, 407-410. 

Primitive flood traditions, 
nature of, 416-417 ; geo- 
graphical distribution of, 417; 
Lithurian, 418-419 ; Austral- 
ian, 419 ; Hawaiian, 419-421; 
Caroline Islands, 420 ; Lee- 
ward Islands, 421-422 ; 
Asiatic, 423-424 ; European, 
424 ; African, none, 424 ; 
Chinese, 423, note; Ameri- 
can, 424-427; Eskimo, 424- 
425 ; Algonquin, 426-427 ; 
Ojibway, 427-429 ; Mexican, 
429-434 ; Guatemalan, 435- 
436 ; Peruvian, 436-437. 



(567) 



Index 



Discrepancies explained, 6, 7. 

Dove, employment by naviga- 
tors, 328-329 ; in Izdubar 
epic, 395 ; in Mexican tradi- 
tion, 431 ; introduced into 
Greece, 367. 

Dragon, 132, 136, 138, 141 ; 
story of Bel and Dragon, 213. 



Ea, Babylonian god, 387-388 ; 
in Adapa legend, 251- 
252. 
Eabani, 229 ; Babylonian 
Adam, 229-234 ; death of, 

239. 251. 

Earth, centre of universe, 83. 

Eden, Garden of, supernatural, 
151, note; site unknown, 151- 
153; rivers surrounding, 152, 
153; Jehovistic conception of , 
153. 156, 157 ; sources of Je- 
hovist's account, 154, 155 ; 
universal tradition of, 186- 
203; traditions of : Egyptian, 
186, 187 ; Zoroastrian, 189- 
190; Hindu, 188-189; Greeic, 
190-191. 

Eloist, 40, 46, 49 ; style of, 40 ; 
passages from, 48, 49; dreams, 

47. 

Enoch, 39, 266, 290, 291, 295, 
see also Appendix III.; 
seventh from Adam, 291 ; 
solar deity, 292 : Book of, 
305 ; Peter and Jude, 307, 
308. 

Eve, creation of, 154 ; moral 
significance, 159-162 ; refer- 
ence in Talmud, 160; referred 
to by our Lord, 160 ; Baby- 
lonian counterpart, 230, 232, 
251; children of, 258. 

Evil, source of unexplained, 
183; connection with Tiamat, 
133, 139-140, 142, 143. 

Ezekiel, 219, 223, 242, 335, 356, 
407; cubit, 334. 



■pall of man, dogma of, 15-16 ; 

^ how regarded by Biblical 
writer, 16-17 ; Jehovistic ac- 
count of, 168-176 ; death not 
caused by, 167-168, 181, 254 ; 
a moral difficulty, 167 ; con- 
sciousness of nakedness, 171- 
172 ; moral responsibility be- 
gins, 180-182; double motive 
in story, 180 ; sin and knowl- 
edge, 180-181 ; Babylonian 
account, 196; parallelism with 
Genesis not complete, 196 ; 
Zoroastrian account, 192-195; 
discussion of cylinder, 196- 
202. 

Firmament, 81, 82. 

Four ages of the world: Egyp- 
tian, 188 ; Hindu, 188 ; Zo- 
roastrian, 189 ; Grecian, 188 ; 
not mentioned in Bible, 191- 
192; Mexican, 430; Dr. Brin- 
ton on, 417, 454-455 ; rela- 
tion to deluge, 455-456, 



/Genealogical tables of antedi- 
^ luvians, number of, 278 ; 
first, 279-284 ; second, 279- 
284, 288 ; third, 280, 281, 284; 
comparison of first, second, 
and third, 284 ; Berosus, 281 ; 
Hindu, 282 ; Chinese and 
Egyptian, 282 ; Phoenician, 
299 ; comparison with Greek 
deities, 282, 299, 300. 
Genesis, date of, 42, 46, 49 ; 
compared with other sacred 
books, 7,8; documents of, 
19 ; evidence of prophetical 
books and Psalms, 15, 17 ; 
repetitions prove different 
authors, 25-28 ; proofs of 
three sources, 28-40; charac- 
teristics of Elohist, 40 ; dis- 
tinctions between Elohist and 



(568) 



Index 



Jehovist, 46, 49-50, 155, 
158 ; accounts of flood inter- 
mingled, 267, 268, 318 ; not 
history, 55-57 ; a collection 
of inspired myths, 68 ; proof 
of divine inspiration, 75; mi- 
raculous element of, 57; study 
of creation, 79 ; difficulty of 
accepting statements as facts, 
82, 84; time consumed in 
creation (controversy), 84-87; 
resemblance to epic of Izdu- 
bar, 249-250 ; proof of com- 
posite authorship, 278, 280- 
281; genealogical tables, 278- 
281 ; sons of God, 303, 304 ; 
life of man limited, 312-314 ; 
an anthropopathic concep- 
tion, 324 ; Redactor, 324 ; lit- 
urgical distinction, 326 ; part 
of Jehovist's cosmology lost, 
140; curse of ground remitted, 
332; pre-exilic, 401. 
Geology, controversy ended, 

413 ; upheaved fossils, 413- 

414 ; a source of flood tradi- 
tions, 425. 

Giants, 304-306, 314-316 ; Mo- 
hammedan myth, 315 ; tradi- 
tions of, 315, 316 ; origin of 
Hebrew traditions, 315-316. 

God, priestly writers' concep- 
tion of, 44; Jehovist's concep- 
tion of, 45 ; development of 
idea in O. T., 58-59; con- 
ception in Genesis, 74 ; sex- 
less, 93; anterior to creation, 
93. 

H 

TTam, son of Noah, 481 ; fa- 
"*^ ther of Canaan, 482; not 

son of Noah, 483. 
Herodotus, unacquainted with 

flood, 362; on language, 505 ; 

account of Babylon, 516, 518. 
Hesiod, unacquainted with 

flood, 362, 455 ; "Catalogue 



of Women," 362, note; on 
creation, 96 ; four ages, 190. 
History, 55-57 ; not imme- 
diately religious, 60; sources 
of, 60-61. 



Inspiration, definition difficult, 
13 ; test of, 14 ; prophets' 
and psalmists' conception of, 
15-16. 

Isaiah, 132, 135, 348, 407. 

Izdubar epic, 225-249, 384- 
397, 467-476 ; antiquity of, 
226, 385-386 ; signs of zo- 
diac in, 226-227 ; a collec- 
tion of narratives, 226, 228 ; 
creation of Eabani, his re- 
semblance to Adam, 229-230 ; 
mention of Uhat, her resem- 
blance to Eve, 231-233 ; Isle 
of the Blessed, 238, 239, 241, 
243, 381 ; a reminiscence of 
Ezekiel, 242 ; Izdubar visits 
the dead, 247-248 ; a simi- 
larity to Genesis, 249 ; 
Haupt's text of, 375 ; trans- 
lators of, 375 ; more exact 
than Berosus, 467. 



Japheth, 486-489 ; ancestor of 
Phoenicians, 489. 
Jehovist, 40 ; style of, 40, 44, 
52, 358, 359 ; subjectivity, 
49; philosophy of, 50; idea 
of sin, 51 ; aversion to cities, 
510-511; anthropopathic 
conception of God, 57, 158- 
I59» 308, 309, 324, 327, 332, 
492-493 ; conception of 
Eden, 148, 149, 153, 158 ; 
water a friendly element, 156; 
does not mention firmament, 
156 ; superiority to Elohist 
and priestly writer, 49 ; gene- 
alogy of Cain, 279, 284, 285, 



(569) 



Index 



292-293 ; account of deluge 
older, 360 ; follows more 
closely Babylonian account, 
385. 

Jeremiah, 235, 261, 262, 513. 

Jerome, 344. 

Josephus, 308, 344, 346, 376. 

Jubilees, Book of, 308. 



K 



K 



enites, descendants of Cain, 
261-264 ; aversion to 
wine, 262. 



T amech, 38, 264, 267, 26S, 

^ 295 ; song of, 40, 264, 267, 
298 ; translation of, 298. 

Language, myths of primitive, 
504-508. 

Leviathan, mythical monster, 
134-137, 156 ; Lord of Te- 
hom, 137; mentioned by 
Isaiah, Job, Psalms, 134-137, 

139- 
Life, infused by God, 150, 312, 

313 ; blood, essence of, 354 ; 

sacredness of, 354, 355. 
Light, 80. 

M 

Man, creation of place in Na- 
ture, 84 ; not deathless, 
177 ; according to Zoroaster, 
192 ; in the Bundahesh, 194- 
196; Lithurian tradition, 418 ; 
Guatemalan, 435. 

Metals, Hebrews ignorant of, 
299. 

Mexico, traditions of flood in, 
430-431 ; Coxcox, its mytho- 
logical Noah, 430-431 ; myth 
of confusion of tongues, 500, 
501 ; Montezuma, 500. 

Mizraim, 491. 

Moses, not author of Genesis, 



II, 12 ; not named in Gene- 
sis, 29. 
Myth, history idealized, 192 ; 
importance of, 63, 66 ; more 
true to life than critical his- 
tory, 65 ; not the work of one, 
but of humanity, 66 ; German 
and Norse, 208 ; composed 
with a purpose, 260 ; Schir- 
ren's sun myth, 441, 443 ; 
Gerland's ether myth, 441- 
445 ; Cheyne's ether myth, 
445-449 ; Usener on sun 
myth, 450-453. 

N 

TS^isir, 344, 345, 447, 448; 

-•-^ landing place of ark, 394, 
395, 474, 475. 

Noah, 305, 306, 315, 319, 320, 
321, 325-330 ; translation, 
382 ; prophesies concerning 
birth of, 484-486 ; a farmer, 
482, 484 ; discovers vine, 
482, 484-486 ; drunkenness 
of, 482-484 ; Coxcox, Mexi- 
can Noah, 430-431 ; a right- 
eous man, 333, 358. See 
also Deluge. 

o 

Ogyges. See Deluge. 
Oineus, 490. 
Ojibways, flood traditions of, 
427-429. 



■paradise, Ezekiel's conception 

-t of, 220, 221. See Eden. 

Pele, legend of, 420. 

Pentateuch, Aben Ezra's criti- 
cism, 20 ; evidences of three 
documents, 40 (see 19) ; com- 
pilation late, 29-35; composi- 
tion of, 29-35 ; Samaritan, 
288, 327 ; Septuagint, 288. 



(570) 



Index 



Peruvians, civilization distinct 
from Mexican, 436. 

Philo Judaeus, 308. 

Phytios, 490. 

Plato, on heroes, 309 ; Scholiast 
on, 363 ; flood traditions in, 
364 ; on language, 504-505. 

Polygamy, 94. 

Polytheism, 158. 

Popol Vuh, Guatemalan writ- 
ing, 435 ; antiquity of, 

435. 

Preadamite man, origin of idea, 
259, note. 

Priestly Writer, 40, 41, 45, 46, 
323 ; style of, 41, 357, 358 ; 
objective, 49 ; period allowed 
for creation, 85, 86 ; water a 
hostile element, 156 ; multi- 
plication of the race, 162 ; 
narrative broken, 286 ; gene- 
alogy of Cain unknown to, 
292 ; sons of Noah first men- 
tioned by, 333 ; account of 
deluge resembles Berosus' 
account, 384. 

Priests' code, 40. 

Psalms, 133, 134. 

Psammetichus, 505. 

R 

"Dahab, 132-134, 156; men- 
-'^ tioned with Leviathan by 

Isaiah, Job, and Psalms, 138, 

139, 143- 
Rain, ancient idea of, 81-82 ; 

Jehovist's explanation, 157 ; 

as cause of deluge, 326, 327, 

339-340. 
Rainbow, token of covenant, 

355 ; Gentile ideas, 356-357 ; 

in Lithurian legend, 418-419 ; 

in Ezekiel, 356, and Sirach, 

356. 
Raven, 326-329, 396 ; super- 

stitiously regarded, 328. 
Redactor, 302, 318, 324, 326, 



327. 



Sabbath, place at end of cre- 
ation, 143 ; observed by 
Babylonians, 144 ; Jewish, 

145, 147. 

Sacrifice, first mentioned, 258 ; 
originated with Cain, 271 ; of 
Noah, 330-331 ; difference 
between Jehovist and priestly 
writer regarding, 331 ; in 
Izdubar epic, 396. 

Sanchuniathon, 105, 106, 299, 
300, 309, note. 

Satan, late allusion to, 165 ; ser- 
pent not Satan, 165. 

Satapatha Brahmana, 349, 369. 

Science, obligations of to Gene- 
sis, 2-3 ; methods of, 77-78. 

Septuagint, on patriarchs, 288 ; 
variation, 327. 

Serpent, symbol of evil in 
mythologies, 164 ; not a 
spirit, 165 ; a mythical being, 
167, 212 ; in Babylonian tra- 
dition foe of God, 213 ; in 
O. T., 212-213 ; in Apoc- 
rypha, 213 ; sacred object to 
Greeks, 214 ; as regarded by 
Phoenicians, 215-216 ; among 
Persians, 217 ; worship origi- 
nated in Egypt, 215 ; in Iz- 
dubar epic, 245 ; in Algon- 
quin tradition, 426 ; Ojibway 
legend. Serpent King, 427', 
428. 

Seth, Adam's son, 301 ; father 
of Enos, 302 ; posterity not 
contrasted with Cain's, 305. 

Sit-napistim, Babylonian Noah, 
239 ; resemblance to Enoch, 
239 ; reference to deluge, 
244 ; identical with Xisu- 
thros, 377 ; translated, 241, 
380, 382, 397 ; Cheyne's al- 
lusion to, 447 ; Berosus' story, 
377-380 ; cuneiform account, 
384-397. 

Sodom, destruction of, 405. 



(571) 



Index 



/i f^9 7 



Sons of God, linguistic difficul- 
ties, 303-304, 312-314 ; an- 
gelic beings, 308 ; resem- 
blance to Gentile myths, 308- 
309 ; nature deities, 311 ; in 
late writings, 308. 

Sun, ancient idea of, 82-83. 

Surippak, 467-469 ; meaning 
of name, 469. 

Sword, flaming, not ordinary 
weapon, 224 ; possesses in- 
herent energy, 224 ; akin to 
sword of Jahveh, lightning, 
224. 

T 

'T^almud, 29 ; on creation of 

J- Eve, 160; on Adam's 
death, 168. 

Tatian, the Diatessaron, 4. 

Tehom, Hebrew chaos, 127, 
138^ 139, 140, 339 ; equiva- 
lent to Babylonian Tiamat, 
III, 130 ; word used by 
Isaiah, 132 ; subject to Levia- 
than, 137. 

Temptation, 164, 167-171 ; pos- 
sible representation in Baby- 
lonian seal, 197-201. 

Tiamat, Babylonian principle 
of chaos. III, 112, 115, 128, 
130-131, 136, 156 ; equiva- 
lent to Tehom, iii, 129-130 ; 
Hebrew counterpart in Ra- 
hab, 129, 130-138 ; destruc- 
tion of, 114-115, 129-130; 
original role of in creation 
story, 138-139. 

Titans, 501. 

Traditions of savage nations 
unreliable, 415-416. 

Tree, of knowledge, 210 ; origi- 
nal conception of Jehovist, 
211^212 ; prophetical trees 



in O. T., 210-212 ; of life, 
178, 184, 207 ; Babylonian 
representations, 202 ; wide 
diffusion of idea, 203 ; origin 
of Gentile belief in, 203-204 ; 
Soma plant of Hindus, 204 ; 
Germanic myth of Induna, 
205, 208 ; Haoma plant of 
Persians, 205-206 ; nectar of 
Greeks, 206 ; apples of Hes- 
perides, 206 ; ancient name 
of Babylon, " Place of the 
Tree of Life," 210 ; in Izdu- 
barepic, 238, 244, 250 ; name 
in Izdubar epic, 245 ; Adapa 
and food of gods, 252. 

w 

Water, hostile element in 
first account of creation, 
156 ; friendly element in sec- 
ond, 156. 

Williams, cylinder, 136. 

Wine, 482. 

Woman, creation of, 159-160 ; 
relation to man, 160-161 ; 
destiny of, 175-177. 

Word, doctrine of, 507. 



Xisuthros, identical with Sit- 
napistim, 377; translation 
of, 380, 381, 382. 



Zend Avesta, 190, 194, 205, 
371. 
Ziggurats, 512. 

Zoroaster, four ages of, 189 ; 
creation of man, 192 ; Bun- 
dahesh, 194-195. 



f^ 
yf 



H 



(572) 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16065 
(724)779-2111 



